Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixport

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 consensus seems to be that there is insufficient independent coverage by reliable sources. 28bytes (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixport

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:PROMO. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, appears to meet WP:NCORP and no longer reads like an advert after a rewrite by author J7Gor. Ref bombing could be cut down by removing sources with only passing mentions/non-significant coverage, but enough sources exist to demonstrate notability e.g. [1], [2], [3]. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those references meet WP:ORGIND as they are either based on a company announcement or based on an interview. All of the information originates from company sources. ORGIND requires original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺17:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Striking my keep !vote – upon further review of the sources and reading HighKing's analysis, I'm convinced ORGIND isn't met. I haven't found any other sources that attribute their information to something other than company press releases and CEO interviews, so I'll move to Delete. Redirecting to Jihan Wu is an option, but he's only one of two co-founders of supposedly equal importance (though Yuesheng Ge is a redlink). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging David Gerard, as I admire his work on cryptocurrency-related entities and subjects. Dear David, you don't need to put your vote or else we both may be violating AfD rules as per WP:CANVAS - However, the call is yours. As I feel, your valued opinion (as a comment) will be enough to give a direction to this AfD. Thanks in advance. -Hatchens (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources look plausibly RS for CORPDEPTH to me, though I didn't go through all of them - David Gerard (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This page needs to be kept, the sources are accurate and I think it's a good addition to the project.Muhammadsaqibmughal (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Muhammadsaqibmughal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strike as sock. – robertsky (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺17:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's try once more now that we're clear of the holidays
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing's accurate analysis. Cullen328 (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Meets WP:NCORP Matrixport is mentioned, discussed or featured in a number of RS sources (including Forbes, Fortune, Bloomberg News and Crowdfund insider) - these articles do not appear to me to be simply republishing press releases. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Deathlibrarian, you've mentioned a number of publications - for example Forbes, written by a staff member, which you say is more than a republished press release. Perhaps you could point to the part of that article which meets the WP:ORGIND section of WP:CORPDEPTH, in particular, the part I quoted above about "Independent Content"? Much obliged, thank you. HighKing⁺⁺18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there's quite a few - In this Swissinfo article, the second part of the article is some commentary on the company This article - discusses Matrixport's fund raising, and how its the company is valued at more than $1 billion This Bloomberg article discusses Matrixport being spun off Bitmain, and goes into the financial details - This Nikkei Asia article discusses cryptocurrency in Singapore, and Matrixport is discussed as part of that, this article, the first half relates to a press release, but the second part discusses the origins of Matrixport. There's others. These aren't just simple re-releases of press releases, or straight interviews, they are staff written commentary discussing Matrixport (sometimes mixed with information from a press release, which there is of course nothing wrong with). In addition, the first part of this Forbes article appears to be related to a press release, but the second part appears to be staff written commentary about the company. Overall, the commentary here in this RS for this company clearly goes beyond "Trivial or incidental coverage" and so easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's no "Independent Content" in any of those articles. The "commentary" is simply rewording whatever announcement they're "reporting" on. If there wasn't an announcement then we wouldn't see several other articles in different publications all publishing and regurgitating the same "news". That isn't "Independent Content". Looking at the references you've listed:
      - The Swissinfo article is clearly based on a company announcement - for example here is one article dated the day before and here are a couple of other articles with the same date covering the same announcement. I cannot identify much by way of "Independent Content" in any one of there and therefore they fail WP:ORGIND.
      - Same observation on the "Deal Street Asia" article covering the topic company's raising of $100m and reaching "unicorn" status - same date, covering the same detail, no "Independent Content and also fails ORGIND.
      - The Bloomberg reference is also covering the same announcement. You say it "goes into the financial details" - all of the articles do but the Bloomberg article is also relying on information from the CEO Ge Yuesheng. Also fails ORGIND.
      - The Nikkei Asia article does not discuss anything about Matrixport (based on the link you included). They're mentioned in the tag line but the "article" is a single sentence. Is that the correct link to the article you're referring to?
      - The livemint article is actually based on this Bloomberg story (cos it says it right under the "2 min read" tagline) which in turn is based entirely on an interview with the new CEO Ge Yuesheng. So which it may not be based on a press release, neither does it contain "Independent Content" as per ORGIND, therefore fails ORGIND. In addition, same details with the same dates appear in other publications as we've seen before.
      - Finally, you reference a "Forbes" article but you link to a "Fortune" article. This article consists of a summary of the previous raising of capital (see the "unicorn" articles above) followed by a recounting of the details provided by the CEO Ge Yuesheng in an interview. That is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
    You say that although an article may be "sometimes mixed with information from a press release", you haven't highlighted anything (paragraph number?) from those articles which meets *both* CORPDEPTH and ORGIND at the same time. Sure, there might be a single throwaway comment in an article that can't be tracked back to an announcement but that's a long way from the standard requires of references that may be used to establish notability. You highlight that the publications are RS and contain more that trivial or incidental coverage but you're ignoring ORGIND, especially the "Independent Content" aspect. As per WP:SIRS, each reference much meet all the criteria, so even if an article (as you say) meets RS and CORPDEPTH, if the in-depth parts aren't "Independent Content", the article fails ORGIND and therefore WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺14:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing I've gone to quite a bit of trouble to individually reference the articles here, discuss them and point out how they include RS and meet CORPDEPTH.. and I can see you have basically disagreed with all these - at this stage, I'm not sure there's much point in continuing, so at this point I think it best that I just agree to dissagree, so others can contribute. Thanks very much for the discussion, cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Deathlibrarian, I can agree with you that the sources meet RS and CORPDEPTH but not ORGIND which is what I've been saying. Happy to leave it, thanks for engaging. HighKing⁺⁺12:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As with most crypto-related articles, what is independent is either not reliable or not significant and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:49, 13 January 2022 (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.