This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Hi David Gerard. The Coindesk reference is used not to determine notability, but for supporting a specific detail (in conjunction with the other source provided). It seems to me that this usage is permitted according to the previous discussion of the site at WP:RSN. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally an unreliable source, found by consensus to be an unreliable source, and you should stop deliberately reinserting known unreliable sources into Wikipedia, which should only use reliable sources.
Has any actual RS discussed this? If so, use that. If not, then Coindesk isn't usable! It's a generally unreliable source! - David Gerard (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David. I encourage you to read the actual entry at RSN, and please stop reverting while this Talk Page discussion is still in progress. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you stop spamming bad sources and blogs into the article, you're at the promotional content stage now - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that better source could be found, I don't think Snoozy is spamming, since they want to add reports of heavy losses. JBchrchtalk 13:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JBchrch. David, have you read the relevant entry at RSN yet? As per my earlier message, I believe it allows for this source to be used for the purpose which it is in the article. Could you please be more specific about why you think it does not? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally listed as a Generally Unreliable source, which means that per WP:V, which is policy, you should not be using it: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The addition has been challenged; the burden of proof is on you to supply a Reliable Source, and not a literally Unreliable Source. WP:V is policy; WP:RSP is advisory, and can't be used to twist out of policy. You're trying way too hard to find non-policy excuses to deliberately reinsert a known bad source. And there's no excuse for putting NewsBTC in there. Can you find this claim in any Reliable Source? If so, use that - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please WP:AGF and refrain from accusations such as "you're trying way too hard to find non-policy excuses to deliberately reinsert a known bad source"?
That is of course not my intention, the source was added because I believe it is allowed for by the policies. Yes, it is understood that RSP is advisory, therefore the reasons I have cited for including the source are not based on RSP. The closing comments of the RSN discussion actually states that the site is not to be used for determining notability, and that caution be applied by editors to avoid adding promotional content. The usage of the source in this article meets these requirements. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I generally remove Coindesk and related websites when I see them, but in this particular case, it looks like MrsSnoozyTurtle knows what they're doing and I see no reason to remove the sources. Coindesk & Co are not considered generally unreliable or deprecated. The outcome of the first RFC was "no consensus" and the outcome of the second RfC was that is should be avoided when possible. I agree that it's not the best of practice but it is conform to WP:V. JBchrchtalk 16:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've done some work on the article and after reading many articles it looks like the news about the performance of ICO fund in 2018 and 2019 is WP:UNDUE. I am going to remove the statement per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. However, I maintain that no one has breached WP:V here. JBchrchtalk 17:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JBchrch. I was merely trying to add some more recent financial results, but I guess it is not to be. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
