Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldmoney

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. A Train^talk 08:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmoney

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

Not a notable company. The 50 references appear to be all to press releases or their own website. Article is also very promotional in nature. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the company is quite sizeable with approx $300M market cap. You can find the filings on SEDAR at https://www.sedar.com/DisplayProfile.do?lang=EN&issuerType=03&issuerNo=00037170. They are a Canadian start-up company that operates internationally and is starting to report profits after 3 years operation. User:Pareeg83 (talk • ) 11:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)--15:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Pareeg83 (talk) — Pareeg83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I understand that BitGold and GoldMoney are the same publically traded company [1]. Why are there two Wikipedia entries? The article GoldMoney article itself has pretty awful sourcing, but there are results in a quick google search for bitgold as well as for goldmoney. When I count both articles, I found a few sources for Huffington Post, The Guardian, CoinDesk, and Bloomberg which are all WP:RS thus this appears to meet WP:GNG. I agree the article is promotional in nature, but promotional is not (as far as I know) a cause for deletion of the article (rather it should be cause for deletion of content). Maybe we should first merge the two articles and cut all the promo fluff? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Jtbobwaysf, the standard for references that may be used to establish notability goes beyond mere WP:RS. Take a read of WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH in particular, but the references must be intellectually independent. The references you have listed below are not, as they all rely on company announcements or rely extensively on interviews with company officers. For example, this Guardian story] entitled "Spinning gold into dollars: how BitGold intends to become a new standard" relies completely on an interview with Josh Crumb with no intellectually independent opinion or analysis (therefore not intellectually independent). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmoney and Bitgold are now consolidated under the single Goldmoney brand (Goldmoney bought Bitgold). Both had different operations and business models and hence the 2 wikipedia pages. The sourcing meets the WP:GNG. The article may be a bit on the promotional side, but that does not warrant a deletion. Orayyan85 (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC) — Orayyan85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Quick survey of sources. Not the best, best but not the worst either. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Jtbobwaysf mentioned above, the sourcing is OK and does not breach the WP:V - . A page deletion would be considered counterproductive as this page links back to a legitimate publicly traded company and passes the notability test. The article may be skewed on the promotional side to a certain extent, but if you read the article, its clear the majority of the content is written from a NPOV, also a violation of WP:NPOV is not a very strong reason for deletion as the article can be rescued. I believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only minor changes to the content. Iaa2012 (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC) — Iaa2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sanctions warnings handed out to Pareeg83, Iaa2012, Orayyan85 and Topawh. MER-C 10:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable that of the 4 editors mentioned in the sanctions warnings above, Pareeg83 account was created on 14th July 2017 and has only edited on this topic with a total of 5 edits and therefore could be classified as an SPA. Orayyan85 was created a couple of days ago specifically to comment here (clearly a sock). The laa2012 account was created at the beginning of May 2018 and is another SPA that has only made 11 edits, all on this topic. And the topawh account was created in the middle of April and has also made no edits outside of this topic, another SPA. The creator of the related Roy Sebag article, Innovativerush is also an SPA that has only edited this an related articles, and commented on the AfD of Josh Crumb. An interesting aspect of this AfD is, yes you guessed it, another account, RexSox90, was created specifically to edit in this topic area and then disappeared right after. I'm smelling a lot of sock. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability, most of the article is taken up with promoting the company, fails WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent, relying on company announcements or articles based on company announcements or quotations from company officers. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. On a connected note, I've also nominated Roy Sebag article for deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a socky smell around Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

adding intellectually independent references I will be adding more sources now.Iaa2012 (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Still waiting..... HighKing⁺⁺ 14:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- added intellectually independent references Take a look and let me know if some additional changes need to be made. let us work together on improving this article, and make sure it ticks all the boxes. Iaa2012 (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock votes struck: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pareeg83/Archive. MER-C 10:48, 26 May 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.