Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NYDIG

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 moved to Draft:NYDIG, pending improvements that satisfy the concerns raised in this discussion. I have move-locked the page and protected the mainspace target against protection, so that this will not be restored to mainspace without administrative review. BD2412 T 20:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NYDIG

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

New article written by paid editor in draft space, then moved to main space by a user who is now blocked for (apparently) accepting new pages that shouldn't be accepted. The article cited a number of press releases, which I have removed. What remains is coverage in trade publications, which may or may not be relevant, and some decent coverage in Forbes. The company may be notable, but I felt it would be best to give it closer scrutiny, to decide whether to keep it, delete it, or move it back to draft space (which is my preference). ~Anachronist (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the user who created the article in the draft space, I would comment that I do not have any connection to the user who moved the article to the main space, and do not believe that fact alone should prompt deletion of the article. I would also take issue with the statement that the remaining citations are "trade publications" - as you note, one is Forbes; another is the Wall Street Journal, one of the most widely-distributed publications in the country. I appreciate you bringing closer scrutiny to the article and hope that the community will agree that this page should be kept. ~Kbbrewster13 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Forbes article is by a staff member and not a "Forbes contributor" and so it passes the usual test. The WSJ is lighter in terms of WP:SIGCOV in that it is mostly about Mass Mutual but the transaction itself is certainly significant and was the work product of this company so that also satisfied the test from my point of view. Coindesk is not even to be considered but Business Insider is usually acceptable and I also found an article in American Banker. I'm satisfied that, whatever irregularities it took on the way to mainspace, it is a notable company according to WP:NCORP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from the article being known to be blatant paid spam, I am unconvinced the remaining sources (after I removed the generally-unreliable crypto site) are in sufficient depth to pass the prongs of WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was hoping David Gerard was going to comment to see if what he found backed up what I found prior to tagging. Since it is reassuring that I didn't miss something as I investigated the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, David Gerard, two of the sources are Forbes and the Wall Street Journal, both some of the largest and most widely distributed publications in the country. These articles clearly meet the criteria laid out in WP:NCORP, namely that they 1) contain significant coverage addressing the subject, 2) are completely independent of the article subject, 3) meet the standard for reliable, and 4) are a secondary source. The Forbes article is a full 1,544 words dedicated to NYDIG. The Wall Street Journal article is based upon a press release issued by the subject of this article and based upon an interview with the 2 principles of the subject of this article. It seems a strenuous argument that the article does not cover the subject significantly. If, therefore, there are 2 notable articles that meet the criteria, I would respectfully disagree with your logic. Kbbrewster13 (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Although there a decent number of RS on the subject, as pointed out here and from what I’ve seen in a quick google search, the subject doesn’t seem to have a sufficient level of significant coverage; all but one of the sources are focused on the same event related to a deal with Mass Mutual (see WP:SBST). On top of that, all the sources cover an event from just last month. Unless there are earlier RS’s covering unrelated events involving the company, it would be hard to say this is notable because it is lacking in significant WP:SUSTAINED coverage. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 19:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Hidden Lemon, the two primary sources for this article cover different stories (Forbes 1 story, WSJ another) that are unrelated. There is no criteria I can see in WP:NCORP that requires the news to be a certain age or to be WP:SBST, though I would argue it is the latter. Kbbrewster13 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cited both WP:SBST and WP:SUSTAINED as guidelines for what constitutes significant coverage... which is of course the primary requirement of WP:NCORP. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 00:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added two additional citations from mainstream press have been added - 1 from Bloomberg related to the MassMutual news, and 1 from American Banker related to NYDIG's creation of a bitcoin rewards debit card. Kbbrewster13 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Bloomberg and Business Insider articles are literally press release rehashes, and the Bloomberg one says so in the article text. The NYDIG content in the WSJ piece is repetition of claims directly from NYDIG. If you think that's "depth", I must note that competence is required - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have Wikipedia:Notability (events) as a guideline. Perhaps this discussion should address whether the MassMutual deal coverage qualifies as a notable event or routine coverage. The other attributes (one of the largest institutional providers, second biggest fund complex, etc.) are all assertions of significance that avoids a speedy deletion, but actually keeping an article depends on whether the company meets WP:CORP criteria. As the nominator of this AFD, I thought it was borderline, and possibly NYDIG is notable. That's why I started this discussion.

Personally, my preference would be to move this back to draft space for further improvement, rather than deleting it. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Company has one of only 24 regulatory Bitlicense licenses issued by the New York DFS,[1] which helps to establish notability. WSJ, Forbes, Bloomberg, Pensions and Investments and other top tier editorial coverage make it clear that the subject is past WP:TOOSOON, and that WP:CORP WP:GNG has been met. With institutional support, this is not some random ICO or blockchain effort, and we can expect more coverage soon enough.Nixie9 ✉ 19:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that the Forbes "sites" reference is an acceptable reference, it is still spam. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:56, 19 January 2021 (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.