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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Align Commerce (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)

From company Promotional writing of an article to references used for press or news coverage. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. references are PR exercise of company or clearly influenced by the company the way it is being covered by media. company only mention the Investment news where thousands of company gets seed, angel or any kind of funding on daily basis on each part of the world. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. It will be flooded with thousands of worldwide funding company daily. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How do you know the company wrote the page? When you say it is promotional and nothing else, that indicates that you feel every sentence is promotional which would lead to WP:G11. Can you tell me what about the first paragraph is promotional? --CNMall41 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as blatantly and unbelievably moved from sandbox to mainspace by the user themselves, showing the sheer blatancy of PR advertising, and that's exactly what the information and sources both are, only advertising or (attempting to hide) what the company clearly wants to advertise about itself. That's not surprising considering the state of this company, which would noticeably need PR and that's exactly what its field comes with, therefore, none of this actually forms substance and there's nothing to suggest we should mistake otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:AGF? I am not sure there is a guideline to delete an article for being moved from a sandbox. I have moved many articles from my userspace to the mainspace so I am not sure what would be "blatant" or "unbelievable" about it.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I saw one paragraph that I found promotional which I removed. Here are two about funding from Cunard (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)The Wall Street Journal and TechCrunch. They are not routine announcements of funding as both publications used the funding as a reason to write a more in-depth article describing the company and its services. There are way too many references available from BitCoin blogs which are not reliable, but here is one from the Ottawa Business Journal which is a feature on both the company and the founder. And another one from the same publication which is just as in-depth as the first. There are additional features in Forbes but those are contributor publications as well as a ton of brief mentions and quotes. The brief mentions do not amount to notability obviously, but they do show this is not a fly-by-night startup looking for press coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, even the WallStreetJournal is filled with company-supplied information and quotes such as even specifying what dollar amounts it involved itself with, that alone starts to question everything because only the company would know that; also, as for the TechCrunch, there's been a considerable amount of Delete consensus here at AfD that TechCrunch is still such a questionable source because it will basically publish anything including when it's heavily influenced and supplied by the company itself, simply notice how the article itself either contains businesspeople or company quotes, specifics about its numbers and business plans-thoughts, none of that is independent and it's basically republished PR.

Also, another case is the Business Journals, they are a damningly notorious place for companies to advertise themselves and we have established that here at AfD numerous times, and it's also noticeable because that website itself also contains company and businesspeople quotes, specifics about its own plans and interests, none of that is actual journalism, if it simply came from the company's own mouth and hands. There are additional features in Forbes but those are contributor publications as well as a ton of brief mentions and quotes.

The brief mentions do not amount to notability obviously, but they do show this is not a fly-by-night startup looking for press coverage itself acknowledges the actual concerns here and how we have to examine and consider the articles carefully for such blatantly obvious PR such as "special contributor" when all it clearly means is that someone is replacing the journalist to speak about the company instead, which is why we have also started to consider Forbes unconvincing and unacceptable because of the obvious questionability of "news".

Also, take "used the funding as a reason to write a more in-depth article describing the company and its services" for example, this itself acknowledges the honest fact the articles initiated and were motivated by PR, therefore questioning the actual genuine "news". Therefore, since the nomination and overall concerns here are advertising, that is actually what it still boils to, and what the Keep comments and listed sources emphasize. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More proof that you need to conduct WP:BEFORE. You are confusing Ottawa Business Journal with the American City Business Journals. As far as The Wall Street Journal is concerned, I don't care WHO SUPPLIED THE INFORMATION. What it comes down to is they have a fact checking system that qualifies them under Wikipedia guidelines as a reliable source. As such, I would say they fact checked the information before printing. If you have an issue with their editorial process, you should take it up with them. Also, who do you think supplies the information for news stories? It's the company. How else would the WSJ find out the information? They are not breaking into businesses and going through its records and then reporting on them in the news. I think you are using any means necessary to support your Deltionist views which has also been recently discussed at WP:ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPA; now as for the article, the Ottawa Business Journal is still only a local business journal willingly advertising its own local business and, as for deletions, I noticeably am willing to delete especially such blatant advertisements as these, because the history nearly always shows the obvious company employees involved, the advertising-focused information such as what it is, how it can be used, services, its finance numbers and other triviality. "I don't care who supplied information, it's still a source" is not considering the damages of not only advertising "news" but also churnalism, because it basically republishes company PR advertising. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take me to WP:ANI if you feel what I said was a WP:NPA. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "republishes company PR" happens AFTER fact checking. All others is considered paid advertising. To understand WP:CHURN fully, you also need to know Native advertising. These publication are required by the FTC to disclose such paid advertising. If you look at "sponsored" articles in these publications - as I have stated to you in other AfD discussions - those are clearly marked as PR. This one isn't and therefore meets the definition of a WP:RS. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Few suggestions to read, as you are stating selective guidelines alone. Wikipedia is not limited to GNC or other guidelines. there is need for assessment also such as Wikipedia:Notability means impact or Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique or

• Wikipedia:No one really cares. What encyclopedic notability it provides, it has few media sources, and debate is going on the media issue, where the debate is why this article should be even part of Encyclopedia at all. what value does it adds apart from being a company directory in Wikipedia. if the sources have covered them in news, let there be a news. What is the relevance of creating an encyclopedia material here? where it only is debating around media sources? can you provide substantial thoughts on why this is encyclopedia material? leave the media debate apart.. everyone knows how such media is covered. Light2021 (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. The company is not yet notable, while the page exists solely to promote the business. Even the claim of notability "the first company to use bitcoin's blockchain to enhance international transactions" is described as a claim by the company. Other content provides the back story on the company founders and the funding news, indicating that there's nothing else to write about. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a catalog of unremarkable private tech companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources found by CNMall41 (talk · contribs) in The Wall Street Journal, TechCrunch, and Ottawa Business Journal provide significant coverage of the subject. The articles are all written by established journalists and published in sources with a history of fact-checking. That these sources consider the information they publish to be credible and worthy of covering means that the information passes Wikipedia:Verifiability.

  I reviewed the article and consider it to be generally neutrally written. Any minor issues can be addressed through normal editing, not deletion, per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Align Commerce to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or incubate  Most of the sources in the article are from early 2015, but I found a recent article from the Phillipines on the first page of WP:BEFORE D1 for Google news, that says that they are now in 60 countries.  I lean toward incubation for a year to wait for more WP:SUSTAINED coverage, but keep also makes sense.  If there were any valid WP:PROMO arguments, the argument would cite text in the article that needed NPOV improvement, which would allow the problem to be removed, but the objections as stated don't seem to have a remedy or a policy basis.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and analysis - The article link above is literally republished company activities, plans and quotes, and the beginning and its sentence name states exactly that to emphasize how it was republished company information; next we have never alone keep articles by the fact it existed and worked in other countries, and nor would it ever happen, since it's not even significant, let alone convincing. The fact this is currently an advertisement and the history shows it, there's no sensible mindset to actually keep this, even with the advertising history which shows alone what this article signified and existed to show.

As it is, this alone, and what's been mentioned above the Delete comments are sufficient in stating the WP:SPAM and WP:NOT concerns, this as it is damns anything else such as WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, etc, because it's what Wikipedia uses to remove anything unsuitable (which this article is). When we start damningly saving such blatant advertisements is when we can no longer be taken seriously as a no-advertising website, because we would've finally become a company-advertising webhost.

Also, the fact the one source above is a new one, and there's nothing else beyond that, actually shows there's literally nothing significant about this company, and that it once again has to republish its own company plans and words to show some sort of "mirroring significance", hence advertising, regardless of publication or anything. I'll note the 2 Delete votes that exist here both cited WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, while the others not only cited WP:GNG, but then simply tossed some republished company PR, and calling it bare "news", without caring to look at the actual advertised quotes. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD considers international attention, such as coverage in both the US and the Phillipines. 

Your opinion that this is an advertisement doesn't seem to be supported by facts and evidence, see the fallacy of argumentum ad infinitum. 

I'd prefer that it be delayed in the incubator for a year, so perhaps that was missed. 

The premise that we are not an advertising website is a misunderstanding to the extent that we provide useful information, and useful information is indeed useful.  The alternative that you seem to suggest is that we can have articles on companies as long as the article is not useful?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is far from clear that this is some sort of blatant PR piece. TechCrunch, Ottawa Business Journal, The Wall Street Journal, and the Manila Bulletin are all respected publications. The presumption that these sources are influenced by the company itself to publish desired information is somewhat baseless as you would have to put into question anything published by these sources (especially if the original source was a press release). But, again, as others have pointed out (per WP:CHURN), major publications often use press releases as sources. Doesn't mean that those publications are therefore unreliable. As it stands, the company has broad coverage in major publications in the United States, Canada, and the Philippines and is also published in a variety of industry publications. In my opinion, it definitely meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Gargleafg (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2016 (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.