The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kinesis money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested A7/G11. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete More cryptospam! Definitely worth a G11 given the promotional nature. Bkissin (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, provisionally. As common as self-promotion is in cryptocurrency articles, this does not look like a case of WP:G11 to me. The article is a basic description and history of the project, not an ad for it. It's also not a clear WP:A7, as the article has a number of references. What we should be asking is do these sources: [1], [2], [3] qualify as independent reliable coverage per WP:GNG? And if not, can we find other sources? Unless both of these questions can be answered in the negative we do not have a valid criteria for deletion. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @BenKuykendall: - the claims are WP:CRYSTAL, and there's nothing that comes close to meeting WP:NCORP. Cabayi (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cabayi: Most of the article is not the "unverifiable speculation" to which WP:CRYSTAL applies; perhaps the announced collaboration with JFX is speculation, but the rest of the article stands. In terms of WP:NCORP, I need to see more analysis of the existing sources -- of the criteria for sources (significant coverage, independent, reliable) which are not met here? I am not claiming this is a good article or solid sourcing; it is conceivable there is a notability problem. However, you need to argue this and present evidence. We need more than just a policy to carry out a deletion. All the best, BenKuykendall (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as obvious spam, sourced only to press releases. Barely even gets coverage in the crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @David Gerard: where you looking at the page post this edit? There were some marginally better sources previously, which I just added to the article again. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I see a couple of press release reprints ... are there any actual news articles in existence on them? - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Saudi Gazette article titled "Kinesis Money globally accessible and reliable" looks like it came straight from the company. It says "The vision for Kinesis is to deliver an evolutionary step beyond any monetary and banking system available today." This isn't real news. While not obvious from the name u.today is a crypto news site and given the outcome of WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk and other RfCs none should be used for notability. The Star article is the best but it basically came from press releases: "In a joint statement issued on Tuesday, the companies said" Џ 00:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete largely press releases and routine coverage. —Madrenergic^talk 16:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.