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. — The Earwig ^talk 06:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptonews[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Cryptonews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is an assortment of non-independent social media content and info about the company's editorship. I have not been able to locate any significant coverage, much less in reliable sources. WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY are not met. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I started this page. It needs to be further developed. The subject is notable. It was discussed in other media such as Yahoo Finance. See here for example: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/braingrid-limited-announces-proposed-change-222400509.html?.tsrc=fin-srch The subject also is notable because authors who write for other crypto publications publish in Cryptonews such as Bruce Ng. Muckrack considers Cryptonews notable and relevant and includes it in its database. https://muckrack.com/bruce-ng/articles.Topjur01 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding WP:GNG: two or more pieces of coverage in reliable, independent sources are needed. The Yahoo Finance page is a press release, which are classed as non-independent at WP:PRSOURCE. I have also consulted the article you mentioned. (Here's a link if other editors want to view this). The subject is used as a source in footnote 12. I fail to see how this amounts to significant coverage. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I started this page. According to Google Scholar, it is cited in many scholarly publications:

Olivas-Lujan, Miguel R. "Blockchains 2019 in e-HRM: Hit or Hype?." HRM 4.0 For Human-Centered Organizations. Emerald Publishing Limited, 2019.
Calcaterra, Craig, Wulf A. Kaal, and Vadhindran Rao. "Stable Cryptocurrencies: First Order Principles." Stan. J. Blockchain L. & Pol'y 3
- Blake, M. Brian. "Crowdsharing Idle Processor Time." IEEE Computer Architecture Letters 22.04 (2018): 4-5. Calcaterra, Craig, Wulf A. Kaal, and Vadhindran Rao. "Stable Cryptocurrencies: First Order Principles." Stan. J. Blockchain L. & Pol'y 3 (2020): 62.
- Sengupta, Ushnish, and Henry Kim. "Business Process Transformation in Natural Resources Development Using Blockchain: Indigenous Entrepreneurship, Trustless Technology, and Rebuilding Trust." Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology Use Cases. Springer, Cham, 2020. 171-200.
- Raghunath, Nilanjan. "Full Employment and the Cryptocurrency Economy: Lessons Learnt from Michael Polanyi." Tradition and Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical 46.2 (2020): 43-56.
- Ushnish, Sengupta, and Kim Henry. "BUSINESS PROCESS TRANSFORMATION IN NATURAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT USING BLOCKCHAIN: INDIGENOUS ENTREPRENEURSHIP, TRUSTLESS TECHNOLOGY, AND REBUILDING TRUST."
- Blake, M. Brian. "Crowdsharing Idle Processor Time." IEEE Computer Architecture Letters 22.04 (2018): 4-5. Wiśniewska, Anna. "Obszary wykorzystania walut wirtualnych w działalności przedsiębiorstwa." (2018).
- Castillo, Eva M. "Understanding the Use of Malware and Encryption." OUR Journal: ODU Undergraduate Research Journal 7.1 (2020): 2. - Wiśniewska, Anna. "VIRTUAL CURRENCIES IN AN ENTREPRENEURSHIP–AREA OF APPLICATION." Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Nauki Humanistyczno-Spoleczne. Zarzadzanie 45.3 (2018): 7.
- Wiśniewska, Anna. "Waluty wirtualne w kontekście teorematu regresji Ludwiga von Misesa." Catallaxy 2.1 (2017): 37-45. - Teichmann, Fabian Maximilian Johannes, and Marie-Christin Falker. "Cryptocurrencies and financial crime: solutions from Liechtenstein." Journal of Money Laundering Control (2020). Topjur01 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does this address my concern that there is no significant coverage of this subject? Please stop posting walls of text and try to point out one place where this company is discussed by a reliable source at length. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not wish to do a wall of text. I now corrected it by adding breaks. When scholarly publications cite one source a lot, does that not make it significant? Topjur01 (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:SIGCOV states that significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. For example, this article constitutes significant coverage of Mike Pompeo. Also, you have !voted "keep" three times now. Each editor is only allowed one !vote at each AfD. Would you mind erasing two of your three keep !votes? Modussiccandi (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable SEO spam. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - literally not an RS to be found - David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE per above. Article is very poorly sourced with many non-RS items. A search does not find items that would support NCORP. Possibly (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A book and at least ten scholarly articles in influential journals should be enough to pass the notability criterion. This article was co-edited by me, in the early phase it was edited under username "Danielsiter", which I changed into my current username after I realised it isn't a wise idea to use your personal identification in Wikipedia username. This happened due to the fact I'm a beginner and new in creating and editing Wikipedia articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WinSpeChurchill (talk • contribs) 12:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC) — WinSpeChurchill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: note to the closing admin: please note that a sockpuppet investigation into the above and below !voters is currently ongoing. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - None of those who vote "Delete" respond to the fact that many influential academic journals cite the Cryptonews news website. It seems that editors value noteworthy non-academic publications but not noteworthy academic journals. --Topjur01 (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC) (I was mistakenly not logged in and I signed it later) 146.212.27.229 (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC) — 146.212.27.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have answered this objection in my above comment which I encourage you to read. The issue revolves around significant coverage of which none has been conclusively produced. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "none has been conclusively produced"? Each of these ten highly influential academic publications cited Cryptonews as a source used in scholarly research or publication. If it is enough reliable for scholars - ten of them - it should be enough for Wikipedia. Topjur01 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Self-referential, promotional, lacking reliable WP:SIGCOV, etc, etc. The closest thing to actual RS coverage is the article falsely claiming that "according to Yahoo Finance" the subject is X, Y, and Z, when Yahoo just republished a press release from the parent company... which is laughably un-encyclopedic. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 08:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing to the non-encyclopedic sentence and to the reference to Yahoo Finance. I removed these sentences. There is no more self-referencing apart from one sentence. This self-referencing in one sentence, however, is not a reason to remove the whole article, I hope. Thank you for letting me know. Topjur01 (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG Luciapop (talk) 17:41, 29 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.