- 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. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Goldback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is very clearly WP:PROMO. I tried cleaning up a lot of it yesterday since the sources used to get the article through were, uh, not what they claimed. I don't think this meets WP:N.
To start with, the entire article was written to heavily imply that Goldbacks were either issued by or endorsed by the states where they're marketed. (see the Diff from before I made the edits to remove a lot of that).
Secondly, a lot of the sources were... not actually saying what was claimed. For example, from the pre-edited article:
- 'Reuters has reported as of 2022 that as many as "a quarter to half of small businesses in Utah will accept the [Goldback] notes"'
But the cited link that went to was uncritically quoting the ceo:
- "Jeremy Cordon, founder and president at Goldback Inc, said that around a quarter to half of small businesses in Utah will accept the notes."
And likewise, this statement:
- 'Meanwhile, Nevada has seen some buyers purchasing Goldbacks as part of an inflation hedge investment vehicle.'
Cited a local news organization paid advertorial written by the company behind these. Basically every source I checked was either an advertorial, uncritically quoting the company's CEO without verification, or contained in video format which I haven't verified.
The article was heavily edited a single purpose account who proceeded to add links to Goldbacks on every article even vaguely related to gold or the iconography used:
All of these were the same account, which appears to have an affiliation with the company. This looks heavily promotional, and the combination of that and the lack of WP:RS makes me think this should probably simply not be here, even in it's de-promotionalized form. A search for more reliable sources mainly turned up opinion pieces from goldbugs. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That Reuters article was the only RS showing notability there. Why did you remove it? Owen× ☎ 23:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very common in certain parts of Utah, numerous sources online. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Most of links now in the article are of iffy quality, but there seems to be enough to cover the concept. This PBS story [1] and a public radio story [2]. This Reuters source (to a lesser extent) [3] Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I restored the Reuters reference. If the article body didn't correctly describe what the source said, we need to change the article, not remove the only RS we have for this page. Owen× ☎ 23:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that was actually a poor edit on my part. Appreciated. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, these things happen to me all the time. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think that is common enough in the five states it has made notes for, especially Utah, to be relevant enough to keep. As previously mentioned, there are also numerous sources online. Random123games (talk), 13:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Reuters coverage establishing notability. And with Utah passing Section 59-1-1502, and several other states on its heels to allow specie legal tender, notable coverage will only accelerate. Owen× ☎ 14:02, 20 December 2023 (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.