Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Ledger

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Sheldybett (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Power Ledger

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

Power Ledger (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)

Fails WP:NCORP as a non-notable company. R2d232h2 (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in WP:CORPDEPTH, or anywhere in WP:NCORP, does it note that aspirational articles or articles laden with future looking statements don't qualify as 'significant' coverage for the purpose of establishing notability. Could you please expand on this rationale? The WP:ORGIND I get, and I can see how it would apply to some of the refs. Pegnawl (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(All due respect; I just haven't seen that rationale applied when it comes to sniffing out notability - content wise, absolutely, but that's a separate matter.) Pegnawl (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly stated in WP:NCORP that "dependent coverage" based primarily on press statements of future aspirations does not count towards notability. I would not have nominated it for deletion if I was not sure that there was nothing of relevance available. R2d232h2 (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything about futuristic or aspirational press on that policy page, clearly stated or otherwise. Are you arguing that all of the press cited above is pulled from press releases, press kits or interviews, and therefore fails to meet NCORP? That I would buy, but that is a different argument than 'independent press about future-looking statements and company aspirations automatically fail SIGCOV,' which is how I read the above, and I find no support for this in policy. Pegnawl (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just where do you think all the claims of future aspirations came from in these stories, if not from company statements? - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Journalists write about future tense topics all the time. They pull from company statements and include (hopefully) more reporting to bring context to a story. I was thinking that, should Bloomberg, Fortune, AFR and others be so compelled to write about Power Ledger's activities, planned or otherwise, that brings notability to the subject. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the spectrum of churnalism in Notability discussions, pardon the ignorance. Pegnawl (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. The sources provided by Pegnawl (talk · contribs).
    2. This article from The Australian Financial Review is titled "Blockchain start-up Power Ledger criticised for paying spruikers". An article with that title clearly is independent of Power Ledger.
    3. Thomason1, Jane; Ahmad, Mira; Bronder, Pascale; Hoyt, Edward; Pocock, Steven; Bouteloupe, Julien; Donaghy, Katrina; Huysman, David; Willenberg, Tony; Joakim, Ben; Joseph, Loretta; Martin, David; Shrier, David (2018). "Blockchain—Powering and Empowering the Poor in Developing Countries". In Marke, Alastair; Sylvester, Bianca; Macinante, Justin; Klauser, Stefan (eds.). Transforming Climate Finance and Green Investment with Blockchains. London: Academic Press. pp. 144–145. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-814447-3.00010-0. ISBN 978-0-12-814447-3. Retrieved 2019-01-12.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

      The book notes:

    4. Van Rijmenam, Mark; Ryan, Philippa (2018). Blockchain: Transforming Your Business and Our World. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-85555-9. Retrieved 2019-01-12.

      The book notes:

      The book further notes:
    5. Anda, Martin (2018). "Business and Technology". In Brueckner, Martin; Spencer, Rochelle; Paull, Megan (eds.). Disciplining the Undisciplined? Perspectives from Business, Society and Politics on Responsible Citizenship, Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability. Cham: Springer Nature. pp. 169–171. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71449-3_10. ISBN 978-3-319-71448-6. Retrieved 2019-01-12.

      The book has a section titled "Jemma Green: Power Ledger—Disrupting Australia's Energy System".

      The book notes:

      The book includes quotes from Jemma Green.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Power Ledger to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Again, this is forward-looking statements that fail WP:NCORP. You are doing your wall-of-text filibustering thing again - you need to assess your sources, not just cut'n'paste search results and assert they prove notability - David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Review of book sources (all three are no good)
First book: That "Martin, David" or "David Martin" who helped write that chapter is the co-founder of Power Ledger. How am I sure he's the right one? Scroll up on Google Books to the beginning of the chapter on page 137 and he's labeled as such.
Second book: Writer1 is Mark van Rijmenam who currently calls himself a "#BigData & #Blockchain Influencer" on his verified Twitter account, though the earliest archive.org snapshot from 2014 has no mention of "blockchain." It appears to have been added between July 2016 and November 2016. His website calls itself "the one-stop source for big data, blockchain and artificial intelligence." A recent article they published is titled "What Big Data and UFOs Have in Common". The current front page article with the title in big letters is "3 Major Ways the Internet of Things is Revolutionizing E-Commerce", written by a guy with an SEO company. Writer2 is Philippa Ryan who seems more reliable, but she joined this Australian blockchain association along with the co-founder of Power Ledger, Jemma Green.
Third book: Written by Martin Anda who has said nice things about Power Ledger's involvement with his university.[1][2] Џ 02:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The The Australian Financial Review article titled "Blockchain start-up Power Ledger criticised for paying spruikers" is an independent reliable source critical of Power Ledger. It meets WP:NCORP.

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of substantial coverage says: "Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement" include "... a book passage ... focusing on a product or organization". I have provided book passages including a passage in a Routledge book and significant coverage in a Springer Nature book.

That Power Ledger has received significant coverage in two books from reputable publishers strongly establishes notability.

Fair point that the first book source is not independent because a co-founder is among the 13 co-authors of the chapter.

I do not consider the other two book sources to be disqualified. They were published in reputable publishers and the accuracy of their content has not been questioned.

For the second book, that Mark van Rijmenam tweeted about an article his company wrote about big data and UFO sightings (that included research The Economist did about how UFO sightings happen during "drinking hours") does not affect the reliability of the book. That his Twitter profile did not have a mention of "blockchain" until 2016 also does not affect the reliability of the book. That Philippa Ryan is a member of the same blockchain association as one of the cofounders does not make her not independent of the subject.

For the third book, that Martin Anda "has said nice things about Power Ledger's involvement with his university" does not make him not independent of the subject.

Cunard (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Power_Ledger&oldid=1220814490"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Ledger, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.