Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abra (company)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Abra (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yet another article on a non-notable start-up, propped up by Churnalism. PROD tag removed, citing some nonsense about "content disputes". Calton | Talk 02:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. CNN and Forbes are reliable sources, and it is rather startling that an article including those sources would be characterized as "churnalism". With respect to deletion, the questions to be addressed are whether the subject is a hoax (clearly it is not) and whether it is notable. Non-notable entities tend not to get reported on by multiple major news outlets. This proposal for deletion clearly does not arise from a genuine understanding of notability, but on the way that the article is written. Having been an administrator on Wikipedia for nearly twelve years, I know a content dispute when I see one. bd2412  T 02:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I have also just added references to two Bloomberg articles. Cheers! bd2412  T 02:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * CNN and Forbes are reliable sources. Perhaps you should look up "churnalism" before making such blanket statements, or do a search for "Forbes" on the Reliable sources noticeboard". And while you're at it, look up the phrase "passing mentions". --Calton | Talk 03:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, let's maintain a civil discussion. There is certainly nothing here to get angry over. Secondly, there is no need to make snide suggestions that I "look up" common Wikipedia principles. I helped create many of them. Thirdly, I will be the first to agree that there are many efforts to place non-notable companies on Wikipedia; I have deleted hundreds of these. This just doesn't happen to be one of those cases. bd2412  T 03:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I accept User:BD2412's explanation of notability.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If we're referring to https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2015/10/22/american-express-invests-in-bitcoin-venture-abra-which-announces-u-s-philippines-launch/#7731092f5eec, Forbes has a pay-per-click business model for its online "contributors" that is quite different from its print. It's similar to Examiner.com and I don't believe it is considered a reliable source, for notability purposes. The nominator is correct, in that case, and in correcting BD2412's statement on the matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I also think the nominator's right about the churnalism thing: what is one to make of triumphalist articles like "Abra Just Electrified Blockchain Entrepreneurs in NYC" (Observer). I have performed a Gnews search and aside from CNN, I don't see enough media penetration beyond bitcoin trade websites, and publications of questionable editorial independence, into bona fide independent and respected business publications. Weak delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't "aside from CNN" a pretty big "aside from"? Also, I noted above that I added links to two Bloomberg articles, which are also on par with CNN as a source. bd2412  T 02:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, so it's one okay source. You know that's not enough. The two Bloomberg hits are passing mentions. My !vote remains the same. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that one okay source is not enough - but there are more. Business Insider is a reliable source, and no one has called that into question here. I just added two additional sources to the article, one from CoinTelegraph, and another from NewsBTC. The NewsBTC article is obviously not a fluff piece, because it is in fact critical of Abra, highlighting consumer displeasure with the company's verification procedure. I think these additional sources resolve the "one okay source" question. However, even if they didn't exist, I would argue that this particular Forbes article passes muster irrespective of whether Forbes as a whole does. The author of the piece, Laura Shin, appears to have a good track record as a neutral journalist. Per WP:UGC, even a straight-up blog post is a reliable source if the author is a professional in their field. I have gone through some of her work and found some compelling, and decidedly not "churnalism" pieces like "Medical identity theft: How the health care industry is failing us". My conclusion is that discounting the source out of hand would be no better than giving the source a pass out of hand, and on balance, irrespective of the venue, this journalist is a reliable source. Cheers! bd2412  T 23:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON; run-of-the-mill tech startup, with "Bitcoin" attached to it, so it's able to get some press. The content is quite typical of such promo articles -- ref bombing & attempts to inherit notability from the prior companies where the founders worked:
 * Abra was founded in 2014 in the Silicon Valley by Bill Barhydt, a former software engineer for Goldman Sachs and former director of Netscape.


 * Nothing stands out about this company, and the coverage is PR driven and not sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are the usual TechCrunch and coindesk.com -- which is all routine coverage: funding, product launches, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (notify)  17:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - So, the argument for deletion is the claim that the reliable sources which appear to exist actually shouldn't be considered reliable sources. The reason given is that the sources are republishing already-written material; therefore it can't be considered actual coverage. However, in my review of the sources, I can't seem to find any evidence that this is the case. The articles all look like they're authored by different writers and I don't see any indication that they're not original articles. So, the fundamental reason being put forward doesn't quite even add up. S warm   ♠  17:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.