Spoke with user RoySmith who filed for deletion. He's mistaken this article for spam. Netcoins is a notable publicly traded company, world first in the Bitcoin industry, widely cited in media and online. Nearly $100M in revenue. Others less notable are included in Wikipedia. RoySmith deleted this draft article in haste without understanding the industry. 70.68.198.124 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You must be mistaken: "...their particular coin". Netcoins offers no coin and is NOT a cryptocurrency. Your general industry/promotion concern aspect is valid in general, however it does not apply to this company. No words have been put in his mouth, he specifically used the phrase "Cryptocurrency spam" - as I've stated, it's neither. A google news search brings up a variety of print, radio and national media sources.
Citing a well known, publicly traded company, is not spam. So far here it only seems to be rash industry bias (which indeed may be well founded if a company is offering an actual token/coin, however as stated this is NOT the case). I see no valid reason why a page on this company wouldn't be the public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.198.124 (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Netcoins is a cryptocurrency company headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The company is in the business of developing software to facilitate the purchase and sale of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for consumers and businesses. Netcoins enables the sale of bitcoin through its software at retail outlets, individual agents and directly to clients purchasing online.[1] In March 2018, Netcoins went public on the Canadian Securities Exchange, notably as the first Bitcoin exchange or Bitcoin ATM company in the world to do so.[2]
RoySmith's explanation for the deletion here was "Cryptocurrency spam". Perhaps the IP editor who created the page has a conflict of interest but I have not seen any evidence of this. I reviewed the page's text and do not find it promotional.
Endorse It seems unambiguous to me based on the text posted above, especially given the fact it's on an incredibly spammy topic. Even if not, it clearly fails WP:NORG, though the fact it's in draft space is wrinkly there. Only links are to its listing on the CSE, which I believe is fairly easy to get on, and a community-driven newspaper. SportingFlyerT·C06:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how the draft is "exclusively promotional" (quote from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion). The draft neutrally presents factual information about the company. The only possibly promotional part is "notably as the first Bitcoin exchange or Bitcoin ATM company in the world to do so", which is not verified by the cited source. That the draft is "on an incredibly spammy topic" does not affect whether it meets the speedy deletion criteria.
That the draft's sources fail to demonstrate compliance with WP:NORG does not support speedy deletion. From Wikipedia:Drafts#Miscellany for deletion, "It was determined in this RfC regarding the applicability of Wikipedia:Notability to drafts in the userspace or draftspace that 'notability guidelines do not apply to userspace and draftspace drafts.'" I agree that Canadian Securities Exchange is relatively easy to get on, compared to Toronto Stock Exchange for example. But that does not support speedy deletion of the draft.
These are valid arguments to make in an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion. But they do not support speedy deletion of a 17-hour-old draft under {{db-spam}}.
Comment from deleter. Being promotional is not just about using flowery language. Simply getting your name into a highly visible place is a form of promotion. For example, the Blue Man ad, taken from Advertising, reproduced here. It doesn't have to say, "Blue Man is wonderful", or exhort people to "Buy your Blue Man tickets NOW!". Just getting the name in view of lots of people is promotional enough to have justified Blue Man paying what I can only assume is a large sum of money to have it painted on the side of an airplane That's all this is; it's an attempt to get the company's name (and a link to their website) into the public view. The only difference between Blue Man and the current example under review is that we don't charge anybody money to use our site to promote their company or product. The fact that this was created by an IP which geolocates to Vancouver (where the company is located) is just another hint. And the fact that much of the text is almost word-for-word from a company press release (see, for example, About the Company) is yet another hint (and probably enough to justify WP:G12 by itself). Looks like a duck to me. -- RoySmith(talk)18:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G11 says, "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." The text does not use flowery language when it says what the company does so it attempts to describe the company from a neutral point of view. "Simply getting your name into a highly visible place is a form of promotion" because "it's an attempt to get the company's name (and a link to their website) into the public view" is not enough to qualify for speedy deletion under G11 because that is too broad and could be applied to nearly any company article regardless of how neutrally written the article is. I agree that this is likely a undisclosed conflict of interest. But an article qualifies for G11 based on the text, not on the author's intent or motivations. Previous RfCs at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 61#Proposed new criterion, Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#New criteria, and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 69#ToU violation did not find consensus for adding a speedy deletion criterion for undisclosed paid editing.
This is a good find. That the text is "almost word-for-word from a company press release" is a solid reason for deletion under G12. Thank you for explaining your deletion rationale further. I support the deletion under G12.
I don't see how an article which quotes extensively from a company press release can be said to describe its subject from a neutral point of view. -- RoySmith(talk)22:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before knowing some of the text came from a press release's description of the company, I found the text to be primarily factual and neutrally written. I now know that although written in a factual, neutrally worded manner, the text is not based on a neutral source. My view is that I should be able to tell whether WP:G11's "exclusively promotional" clause applies based only on the text of the article, so that I now know that some of the text came from a press release does not affect the WP:G11 analysis.
Analyzing each sentence of the draft:
"Netcoins is a cryptocurrency company headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada." – this neutrally describes the company's industry and where it is based. This is not "exclusively promotional".
"The company is in the business of developing software to facilitate the purchase and sale of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for consumers and businesses." – this neutrally describes the company's product. This is not "exclusively promotional".
"Netcoins enables the sale of bitcoin through its software at retail outlets, individual agents and directly to clients purchasing online.[1]" – this neutrally describes the company's product. This is not "exclusively promotional".
"In March 2018, Netcoins went public on the Canadian Securities Exchange, notably as the first Bitcoin exchange or Bitcoin ATM company in the world to do so.[2]" – disregarding the "notably as the first" part, this neutrally describes the company's IPO. This is not "exclusively promotional".
If the article quoted this paragraph from that same press release (bolding added to the "marketing speak):
Netcoins OTC (Over-The-Counter) business, also known as our private brokerage, continues to gain strength in the global market. Targeting cryptocurrency miners, institutional investors, crypto hedge fund operators, and high net worth individuals, the OTC business provides 3 distinct market advantages:
Market Leading Service Fees
Speed of Payment (often same day)
Personalized Account Rep and an Always-on OTC platform for transactions at otc.gonetcoins.com
then WP:G11 would apply because this "marketing speak" is clearly "exclusively promotional". But because it quoted a part of the press release that had no "marketing speak" and contained only factual information, WP:G11 does not apply.
In the end, this is a good deletion. I just would have preferred a WP:G12 deletion over a WP:G11 deletion.
The Company is in the business of developing software to better facilitate the purchase and sale of bitcoin for end-users. Netcoins enables the sale of bitcoin through its software at retail outlets, through individual agents and directly to clients purchasing in large quantities.
The wording of the deleted draft is too close to the wording of the press release, so I recommend that the draft is kept deleted.
If the wording of the draft is changed, then it would be acceptable to undelete? Can the original draft be retrieved for editing and then subsequent review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.198.124 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IP will soon be unblocked as it is/was(?) no longer a proxy. My comment about this being a bad faith nomination was based on a proxy/VPN being used, so I have retracted it. MER-C22:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
.jpg)
