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. I believe there was consensus to delete before relisting, and the arguments here based on policy and guidelines strongly favour deletion. The additional keep vote doesn't shift the consensus away from deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coins.ph[edit]

Coins.ph (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)

Notability not established. Company not mentioned in any reliable mainstream media as required per GNG. Only mentioned in passing in BBC. Ysangkok (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, too soon, too small, too insignificant at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only other source I can find online is about them being sold. Not notable. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and above votes. Nothing really notable about this one. dibbydib 08:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and above votes. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't think this Philstar article, this article on partnership with Western Union, nor Rappler 2-part coverage on mobile payments in the Philippines (part 1 and part 2) are simply passing mentions. These articles prove the app's/service's notability. Article could still be improved, though. HiwilmsTalk 19:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiwilms: How is that Rappler article not a passing mention? It is mentioned two times in the article. They dedicate a total of one sentence to describing what it is in part 1. The article is full of stock photos. Part 2 covers it in two sentences, dedicating the next seven sentences to explaining what blockchain is and how Coins.ph "probably" got a boost. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:CORPDEPTH:

Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

The fact that the second part of the Rappler article discussed its functions and features well and compared it to other apps that provide similar services only means that these are not simply passing mentions. HiwilmsTalk 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The startup company is talked about in Manila Standard and Business World. The company is also known for its partnership with UnionBank; It was even acquired by Go-Jek last year. With these reliable sources, including the ones indicated by Hiwilms, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: Why does aquisition mean that it is notable? You cannot cite Coindesk. Manila Standard is local media, they will mention basically any local company. TechCrunch is a tech blog, all they do is do shout-outs, a mention there does not mean notability. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and the article did not meet the standards set per WP:ORGCRITE. Coverage is not that significant enough to sufficiently establish notability.--ERAMnc 09:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPAM and per nom. I've been to the Philippines to meet my partner's family, and Manila is filled with scams like this one. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to prove that this is a scam when Western Union partnered with Coins.ph? HiwilmsTalk 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Selective Merge to Gojek. Quite disagree with fellow editor Bearian's views that it is a scam. Though I don't know much about Philippines you don't get coverage in BBC, Techcrunch, coinbase, Phillipine star, bussinesswire, et cetera through scam. The orgcrit criteria is much stricter. So a selective merge to acquirer company seems best. Go-Jek buys fintech startup Coins.ph for $72M ahead of Philippines expansion. - Harsh (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonable compromise, thank you for that idea, Harsh 2580. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Tech Crunch is a reliable source per WP:RSP, and the dismissal of the Manila Standard as “local news” is ludicrous. Manila has an urban area with a population of over 21 Million people, dismissing it as local news is akin to dismissing The New York Times as local news. The sources given cause this article to pass GNG and WP:NCORP. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Devonian Wombat: The Manila Standard doesn't have the same level of journalism that the New York Times does. Did you read the piece? It is fluff, and even has grammatical errors. Here is a list of exaggerated fluff wording that you'd never see in reputable media:

• "What did Coins.ph do to be in such an enviable position and which other startups could learn from?"
• "only had one goal in mind"
• "huge potential"
• "all of which strongly believed"
• "build something bigger and better for their customers"
• "allows users to easily send"
• "faster than other developing markets in Southeast Asia" (this is part of a giant quote that they just pasted outright)
• "the universally accepted indicators"
• "one of the first large exits"
• "It leads the way".

All of this hints that it is just an ad. --Ysangkok (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2020 (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.