Bitcoin Suisse AG

Brandnewz (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd deletion happened on similar reasons as 1st soft deletion - one argument was that the article “appears to be mainly WP:PROMO and does not seem to meet WP:GNG, because it doesn't look like there are multiple references that are independent, significant, reliable and secondary at the same time”.

Facts why this should be reconsidered: For the purposes of this article, the definition of “independent, significant, reliable and secondary references” tends, in my opinion, to be subjectively determined – because although there is a lack of serious, high-profile news agencies and scientific publications in the crypto-currency space (since the crypto-currency market is still relatively young) you can conclude after some research that there is a very high demand in crypto and putting all crypto related articles in relation to each other, you will find that specialized news agencies dominate the majority of coverage of industry-specific news.

As mentioned by “mphorigin” this does not necessarily imply a reporting that does not adhere to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". All outlets reporting are independent and Bitcoin Suisse received significant coverage over the years in news outlets such as Bloomberg, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Bilanz, Finanz und Wirtschaft, Forbes, etc.. (public) which in my opinion are high-profile news agencies.

“Article can be kept if notability can be proved, but at this point I'm not convinced.” – some examples here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-29/swiss-ski-resort-zermatt-now-accepts-bitcoin-to-pay-taxes https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2020/01/17/the-bull-case-for-bitcoin-in-2020/#78c226f93878

Regarding the argument, that there are many WP:SPA accounts. As stated on the respective page, the risk here is that these users’ goals are to promote the company. Open to discuss on promotionally written parts if those can be outlined – however, if the content is written objectively and “a straightforward, just-the-facts style” (Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia), this should not keep the community from accepting it. Everyone is free to decide which article(s) they can contribute to according to Wikipedia.

On argument "WP:ROUTINE": I see that point, should be adjusted.

On the argument "The article's been here years; it's an eternal WP:TOOSOON" : the company exists since almost 7 years, (confirmed by the Swiss commercial register). Bitcoin Suisse belongs to the biggest companies (by employees & revenue) of the canton of Zug. Further, it belongs to the first companies of the so called "Crypto Valley" (which is also explained on the wiki page "Zug"). It shapes the national political debate on distributed ledger technologies as part of the former working group of the Federal Council, and founding member of the Swiss Blockchain Federation. This is publicly known - and therefore I consider Bitcoin Suisse as of high public interest.

Brandnewz (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no other way that AfD could be closed. If you want the article restored then I suggest you pick out a small number of sources which you think pass the criteria at WP:CORP. The two you've linked to here don't quality, the first is a short passing mention and the second is a rewrite of an interview with the company CEO. A user with an admitted conflict of interest editing on a topic which attracts a lot of promotional content from single purpose accounts is not likely to be given the benefit of the doubt. Hut 8.5 12:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. There's already a draft at AfC. If there's content in the original article worth merging, it can probably be histmerged. As for restoring the page, if we actually do that, it would just be deleted again at AfD. If the draft is moved to mainspace before an AfC reviewer judges it ready, it would just be deleted again at AfD. The fundamental issue is notability, and WP:NCORP leaves us no wiggle room at all. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A clear AfD result, this isn't the place to relitigate that. There was no error with the close. Since there's a draft at AfC, you're better off getting that past the threshold with actual reliable sources. SportingFlyer T·C 06:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Pretty straightforward case. Guy (help!) 22:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I still don't see how subject passes WP:NCORP. Deletion seems more of a valid option. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian WhatsApp lynchings

Note: I participated in the AfD, in which I supported keeping the article. My username was User:CJK09 at the time before a very recent username change.

Closed as "delete" with no rationale provided by closer. Vote count: 7 keep, 4 merge, 7 delete (incl. nom), 1 "delete or merge" --> 7 keep, 4.5 merge, 7.5 delete. Keeping in mind that "merge" is not a form of "delete", since the history and much of the content is preserved, such a tally would normally indicate a "no consensus" closure unless the arguments for one of the outcomes are sufficiently strong.

Now, looking more closely at the discussion, 6 of the delete rationales (incl. nom) are based on notability either in full or in part. Only two of these 6 provide rationales for this. The first is the nominator (Tessaracter), who says that Majority of the incidents are easily non-notable and fails WP:LISTN. The second, from Azuredivay, is basically a form of WP:OSDE.

The first three keep rationales (disclosure: including mine) point out various examples of international coverage of the phenomenon as a whole from highly esteemed reliable sources. Because the phenomenon as a whole is notable, it doesn't matter whether the individual incidents are notable, since notability of a list is based on the list topic as a whole, not on the individual list entries. Thus the nominator's invocation of LISTN is not correct. The nominator and a few of the delete and merge rationales cite either or both of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In my keep rationale I provided detailed reasoning of why neither of those applied to the article. Aside from one assertion without explanation in response to my reasoning, none of these provided reasoning for why these parts of WP:NOT apply to the article.

For a discussion with this vote tally to be closed as delete, it has to be clear that the rationales for deletion are stronger than the rationales for keeping. I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion from looking at this AfD discussion. For me there two reasonable interpretations, generously speaking: (1) the keep rationales are stronger than the delete rationales, in which case the discussion should have been closed as keep; and (2) the keep and delete rationales are equally strong, in which case the discussion should have been closed as no consensus. CactusJack (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings: @Tesseracter, Drat8sub, Toughpigs, Yoonadue, Aman.kumar.goel, Desmay, Vanamonde93, Azuredivay, Capankajsmilyo, Hatchens, Yogesh Khandke, Rsrikanth05, D4iNa4, M4DU7, Superastig, Zindagi713, Accesscrawl, and Adondai: CactusJack (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping (typo in previous edit): @Tessaracter: CactusJack (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse When the OP commented on the AfD, it indeed looked attractive as a dumping ground for all homicide-related incidents whether they had anything to do with "WhatsApp" or not, that didn't mattered. I voted for a "merge" but I am happy with deletion because this is all a part of Fake news in India which already covers enough details about WhatsApp. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and using this site as a platform to smear a popular cross messaging app is indeed violation of WP:NOT. --Yoonadue (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral point of view doesn't mean neutral content.It does not mean that we avoid covering things that negatively reflect on an app, country, or whatever else. It means that we don't inject bias into our coverage. "Reality is not neutral, balanced, or unbiased, and content must mirror it." The Keep rationales in the deletion discussion thoroughly refuted the nominator's claim that the article violated WP:NOT. The Delete rationales offered no evidence or explanation for why the article violates WP:NOT. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No new arguments to reconsider, except perhaps what I could summarise by raising the red flag wp:NOTDEM, also can’t suppress “weasel” as a response to “esteemed”. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Already mentioned...first, simply the policies raised by the nominator WP:NOTNEWS/WP:LISTN/WP:IINFO is nowhere true, as the topic is covered in very esteemed news articles, the lists are well mentioned in the discussion starting from BBC, NYT, Gaurdian and the many more including local sources. Secondly, the admin who closed the discussion did not produce any clarification for the closure as delete. Further, I've tried to know the reason of his closure as delete at his talk page, but there was no reply, who is very much active at his talk page. And simply when the article does not violate any policy/guidelines for which it needs to be deleted, I think it should be relisted for further discussion. Its utterly bizzare when when most of the delete vote could not produce any firm rationale to support the nom. Drat8sub (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, at the very least. Spartaz, I don't think you've looked into the substance of the arguments here; the "doesn't meet GNG" argument was debunked thoroughly, and assigning those !votes equal weight isn't appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Relist I did not understand how a discussion in which around two thirds of the responses indicated a desired to retain the article’s content in at least some form could simply be deleted. The article deals with a specific period of time during which there was a number of Whatsapp related killings throughout India. This received worldwide media coverage. It is legitimate for this to be the subject of its own article. The real discussion should be around how to improve the article — not simply delete it.Adondai (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Yoonadue. The delete votes definitely had more merit in that discussion. WP:NOTAVOTE applies. M4DU7 (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No idea about the subject. Not able to take a stand. However, thank you CactusJack for the tag. - Hatchens (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I probably would have closed this as a no consensus for deletion, but given the DRV I'm happy with a relist. I also want to note so far the only user not involved with the AfD above is Vanamonde - I know whoever closes this will do a good job, but this is more to remind everyone it's not helpful to vote the same way at a DRV as you did in the AfD (assuming anyone reads what I write.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. He commented on the AfD. --Yoonadue (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I definitely did a find for each user, may have typo'd that user's name. I still am fine with a relist. SportingFlyer T·C 16:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

closer here real.life has taken a really big chunk of my time since closing this. Had I got to this before the DRV I would have relisted this. I'm happy for this to be speedy closed and put back for someone else to close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: CJK09 and Toughpigs delivered very strong reasoning to keep the article. The keep and delete votes have the same merit. This AfD should've been closed with no consensus. I won't explain any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The article with the problematic title appeared to have been created in violation of WP:POVFORK and WP:NOT. I don't see any legitimate rebuttal against this argument. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Keep rationales in the deletion discussion explained in detail why the article did not violate WP:NOT. The Delete rationales provided little to no counterarguments. Merely making a vague reference to a policy, with no explanation of why it is relevant, does not prove why the article violates the policy in question. Furthermore, there was no POV content in the article. We cover what the reliable sources say. If that reflects negatively on a country, app, or other subject, that doesn't mean we remove it from Wikipedia. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse After I had commented on the AfD, people were more supportive of deleting than keeping the article. WP:NOT applied because like Yoonadue said that Wikipedia must not be used as a platform to depict WhatsApp as a deadly app when none of the company officials played any role in the non-notable murders. Reliable sources are frequently covering things which are forbidden by WP:NOT. Nothing is lost since article's is just a subset of Fake news in India. Azuredivay (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]