Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitnation (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Bitnation
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unambiguous advertising, makes largely unfounded and wildly inaccurate claims about this unrecognised nation that has no territory and may be some internet hype storm/hoax. Claims various things to do with ID papers, marriages and insurance, none of which have any legal standing anywhere except perhaps la la land?. Also probably fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete despite having 41 references and puffery about being a nation-state, this is merely buzzword-fueled hype for what is effectively a web forum. I'm not certain it doesn't meet WP:WEB, but the entire article would be re-written from scratch. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is definitely written like an advertisement, selectively stating opinions as fact (and I have accordingly added an advert tag) but that lack of neutrality can be—and should have been—fixed without even considering deletion. POV is rarely a reason to delete. Even the section WP:G11 within WP:SPEEDY states that "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." All that would be needed would be some objectivity about which of the project's claims are accepted by whom, and more discrimination in the use of sources (favoring the independent ones). The article on the Principality of Sealand could serve as a model; the present article's last two sections (Reception and Controversies) are steps in the right direction. The nominator's claims that the article "probably fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH" and "may be some internet hype storm/hoax" will not withstand a look through the sources, especially those for the last two sections.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Nominator Comment (Delete) regarding Syrenka V's comments. Only 2 or 3 of the references even meet WP:RS, the vast bulk of the text is not backed up by verifiable sources, I still don't see significant coverage by reliable media sources. All I see is a tissue of complex wording and hype generated by the Bitcoin interest group community. Since the so called nation has been happy to work as a digital signature company in Estonia it seems to have limited sources, but not enough for WP:GNG. I am going to rewrite it and put a link here. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 05:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Looking over the sources. The Wall Street Journal article needs you to log in to read it.  The CNN article  only mentions it in one sentence: "This could be the ultimate calling for start-ups such as BitNation, which has already begun issuing virtual IDs -- effectively digital passports -- using blockchain technology."  The Telegraph article  does count is significant coverage in a reliable source.  Forbers coverage counts towards notability as well.  And this source as well counts towards it Most of the article was created by one single purpose account, who might be working for them.  It does look like a commercial in its current state, so needs some work done.   D r e a m Focus  11:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the article, User:Aguyintobooks/sandbox/Articles/Bitnation, I only see 3. reliable sources. 1. the series of articles by ibtimes. and 2. The Telegraph article. The Wall Street Journal article is just a blog post by a contributor. the CNN article is just a passing mention. All the articles that mention Estonia are infact referring to Estonia's e-residency system, not Bitnations system, in this context, Bitnation is a private company, one of many, providing technical support for e-signatures. so that leaves 3. the forbes article. all the others are primary sources or passing mentions. I still don't think this passes WP:CORPDEPTH. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Watching this video provided some insight on the context and authenticity of the Bitnation project (experiment) 7m34s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iAg6BITPdc looking far into the future, this article has value to be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothache (talk • contribs) 17:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. A purely promotional page, with content such as:
 * In December 2014 Bitnation announced it was working with Johan Nygren’s resilience.me Basic Income protocol, built on a mutual insurance-like structure!
 * Etc. Such content is specifically excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book notes: "The more Susanne looked into it, the more she became convinced it was a way to build a free-market anarchist state online, allowing citizens to meet, communicate, make agreements, resolve disputes, provide peer-to-peer security and social insurance and trade with each other in a way that could not be monitored or controlled. After travelling the world to research it further, in early 2014 she wrote a short paper announcing this new nation that would permit people to come together and voluntarily agree how to live: 'The arbitrarily drawn lines called borders, which were once supposed to provide stability, are now the direct cause of instability, due to their 'one size fits all' design... [W]e need to replace the nation state model with a better, non-geographical model and voluntary model: Bitnation.' Unlike Liberland, everything is virtual. To become a 'Bitnation citizen' is extremely simple. In fact, I'm one of about 5,000 Bitnation citizens dotted all over the world. All I had to do was agree with the Bitnation constitution, which is a twelve-line poem, and sign up on the site. I input my age, height, and a photo, two witnesses watched and typed in their names, and that generated a 'World Citizenship ID'. A 'hash' of this ID (a unique string of numberse that can be used, in conjunction with a key, to re-create the original file) was then uploaded onto a blockchain, where it will now stay, unchanged, forever. ... When Susanne presented Bitnation to the conference—which she did while smoking—she explained that the long-term aim of Bitnation, beyond the ID cards and notary services, is to provide a platform for people to come together with other free adults and live according to a set of laws and arbitration methods they've agreed and consented to amongst themselves. It is to create a nation based on the non-aggression principles. Bitnation allows you to take a system of law—modelled on common law, Sharia law or even a law code you've designed yourself—write it up as a private contract, put it on that unchangeable blockchain and invite others to sign up and live by it, tying any digital assets to the agreements made. This is the outer reaches of libertarian thought: polycentric legal systems that live alongside each other and even compete with each other." The book extensively discusses the founding and principles of Bitnation.  The article notes: "Virtual. Decentralized. Voluntary. Borderless. This is Bitnation, a blockchain-powered government service platform like nothing else. Except, surprisingly, Antarctica. 'That's currently the only place in the world not covered by nation-state jurisdiction,' Susanne Tarkowski Tempelhof, the platform's founder told me matter-of-factly, lighting up a cigarette. ... Bitnation has nearly 4,000 citizens flung across the globe, though the majority—and its spokesperson—are based in Europe. The platform is gaining momentum at a time when the strains of the nation-state model are increasingly evident. Europe, the birthplace of the Peace of Westphalia and the emergence of sovereign jurisdiction as we know it, is seemingly plagued by a rise in right-wing nationalism, an uneven debt crisis, an influx of refugees, and a Brexit. ... Through some targeted programs, Bitnation has been able to address specific inadequacies of the European nation-state model. The platform's Refugee Emergency Response project, for example, provides emergency digital ID cards and Bitcoin Visa cards to people escaping war-torn countries and arriving on the shores of Europe." <li> The article notes: "The state might one day become obsolete. At least that’s the idea behind the peculiar Bitnation project, which refers to itself as a “collaborative platform for do-it-yourself government.” According to its official website, “Bitnation provides the same services traditional governments provide, from dispute resolutions and insurance to security and much more — but in a geographically unbound, decentralized, and voluntary way.” This revolutionary undertaking is incorporated on the blockchain, the same decentralized database behind cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin. Susanne T. Tempelhof is the young founder and executive director of this ambitious project that began a couple of months ago. She plans to raise US$2 million in the next 85 days to get Bitnation off the ground. “If we raise $1 million, or even only $500,000, we will still be able to continue, but it will be a lot more stressful,” she told the PanAm Post. The journey leading up to Bitnation’s launch has not been without its share of controversy, including publicized disputes between Tempelhof and other members of the team. A few days ago, Cointelegraph published an interview claiming three core members of the team (Nathan Wosnack, Matt Mckibbin, and David Mondrus) abandoned the company."</li> <li> The summary of the video notes: "Bitnation knows no hierarchies, is autonomous, and is based on voluntary participation. Anyone can join, contribute and offer services. The idea is based on the cryptocurrency bitcoin and the technology that produced the latter: blockchain. There are currently 1500 “citizens” worldwide. Bitnation is not without controversy, however. According to the Montevideo Convention a number of conditions must be fulfilled to be recognized as a state. They include a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the ability to enter into relations with other states. Bitnation fails to meet a number of these stipulations."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bitnation to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Update on sources: this version of the page, which is the current one as I write this, contains 36 of the original 41 sources in the article, formatted as full references, not just titled links. I've removed some references that were just duplicates of others, as well as a few that I felt were total nonstarters (like one that was explicitly sourced to a press release). Formatting the remaining 36 references does not indicate a commitment to retaining them; it's just to allow us all to see clearly what's under discussion as the more dubious ones get removed. Still less does it indicate a commitment to retaining the present text of the article. The plan is to remove all references that are not suitable, then rewrite the article based on the ones that remain (and possibly some new references, like the book mentioned in the previous writer's comment). More sources will likely remain than those cited in the nominator's userspace rewrite—for example, the article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which is to Germany roughly what The New York Times is to the USA—but much less than 36 or 41.
 * I think all sources written by Giulio Prisco, wherever published, will have to be rejected as non-independent. In this source he himself indicates how close he is to Bitnation founder Tempelhof—too close to be independent as a reporter. All periodicals and websites specifically devoted to Bitcoin will probably have to be rejected too (or maybe retain only Bitcoin Magazine?) on the ground that, even if actual conflict of interest does not exist in every case, suspicions of conflict will prevent them from being accepted by consensus as reliable sources.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Any source even remotely related to bit-coin is going to be unreliable when discussing 'their new country', personally I think this includes Bitcoin Magazine, who stand to gain by publicize this project and are therefore connected. The hype surrounding this project is very good, but ultimately seems to be in-bubble fringe theories mixed with technological enterprise. I see no sources doing anything except a passing mention or parroting a press report. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no clear gain from publicizing Bitnation for a source that is tied to Bitcoin (but not specifically tied to Bitnation already, in the way that Giulio Prisco is). In fact, there is a considerable risk of harming their cause by getting themselves dismissed as "in-bubble fringe" along with Bitnation, whose similarity to the notoriously fringey Principality of Sealand is obvious. The conflict I was referring to as a reason for dismissing Bitcoin-related publications as reliable sources was a bit different. It's a consideration referred to in the section WP:QS (including footnote 8) within the policy WP:V, and is related to Bitcoin itself, not Bitnation. At this stage in the development of Bitcoin, it's likely (though not inevitable—but "apparent" as well as actual COI prevents a source from being considered reliable) that anyone interested enough in Bitcoin to found a publication about it will be holding a position in Bitcoin, and will therefore be conflicted. As I interpret WP:V, such a conflict would apply to the entire publication and anything it publishes. For this reason, I'm willing to go along with removing all such sources from the Bitnation article. I don't think we need them.
 * As to "I see no sources doing anything except a passing mention or parroting a press report": have you run the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reference through Google Translate? It is in depth and not remotely like a press release—although the way it is used in the present article is misleading at best. What is more, it quotes academic experts with critical commentary on the theories underlying Bitnation. My follow-up on those quotations has revealed an ongoing discussion of Bitnation and its underlying theories in academic and legal circles. For example:
 * That these articles are highly critical of the theories underlying Bitnation does not make them any less valuable as sources; if anything, it makes them more valuable.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That these articles are highly critical of the theories underlying Bitnation does not make them any less valuable as sources; if anything, it makes them more valuable.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:SPIP miserably as entirely promotional. Not only that but none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The CNN reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There's been one or two stating that the Telegraph article meets the criteria for establishing notability but since the facts and details are from the founder with no independent opinions expressed, it is not intellectually independent and also fails WP:ORGIND. The Forbes article (like just about all the Forbes articles I've examined) fails also as it merely repeats what BitNation says about itself and fails WP:ORGIND and is not intellectually independent. Cunard's mini-novel contains the usual overly-long and excessive quotations which often resemble the results of searching for the search term in "reliable sources" with no thorough examination of whether the reference itself is intellectually independent or otherwise meets the criteria for establishing notability. Although it is a total mish-mash, occasionally Cunard turns up some gems which are good references. So for the sake of completeness.... the first reference from a book by Jamie Bartlett is clearly an interview with the founder and therefore fails as a PRIMARY source, not intellectually independent, and fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The next reference is a Vice article and once again contains extensive quotations from the founder and from an "ambassador" ... but I believe it meets the criteria for establishing notability as it also provides opinions from unconnected and intellectually independent sources such as Dr. Jennifer Jackson-Preece from LSE and includes the journalist's own opinion.The PanAmPost reference fails since it relies almost exclusively on an interview with the founder and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The final reference from dw.com fails as it is an interview from another "ambassador" and is therefore a PRIMARY source and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. A common misunderstanding of the Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is that it is the *source* which must be independent but this is incorrect. It is the reference itself which must be independent. Clearly, an "independent source" can publish a company announcement word-for-word and still remain an independent source but the reference would not be independent. Many of the examples provided appear to fall foul of this misunderstanding. In summary, the criteria for establishing notability has not beet met. -- HighKing ++ 18:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * While it is true that the specific reference, not just the periodical or other publication, must be independent of the subject, here "independent of" means merely "not under the control of". It merely "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it", to use WP:GNG's own words. Simple pass-through of e.g. press releases written by the subject (even with paraphrase) fails this criterion, but extensive quotation accompanied by critical analysis is another matter entirely. That is what we see in the Forbes article (Coppola 2016-04-03) and the Telegraph article (Bartlett 2016-05-24); they therefore satisfy WP:GNG's independence criterion. Even an interview is independent of the subject as long as the interviewer, not the subject, is deciding what questions will be asked. (Try asking someone interviewed by e.g. Dan Rather whether the resulting publication was under their control!) An interview is a primary source, since it is based on material not previously published elsewhere, unlike articles that use quotations, but that's a separate matter from independence.
 * Remember also that even an article based around an interview can be a secondary source for material it includes from other sources than the interview. As WP:PRIMARY says, "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." WP:PRIMARY is probably the most misused (section of a) policy in existence, mainly from neglect of this point.
 * WP:CORPDEPTH is probably the most misused (section of a) guideline in existence. It takes the form of a list of types of coverage that are trivial and not in depth, and explicitly states that all other types of coverage are acceptable—and even so, indicates that sources not providing substantial coverage individually can still do so cumulatively: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." The discussion of "passing mention" is also frequently misinterpreted; it is not equivalent to "brief mention". The example provided is "identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." A mention that is an integral part of an argument made by the source, however brief, is not a mention in passing.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually your interpretation of CORPDEPTH is incorrect, Firstly the list is not exhaustive, so you saying:  is incorrect since the list is only a few examples.
 * Secondly you say:  this simply means if CORPDEPTH is not satisfied, consider falling back on a stringent test of building the required depth from a number of substantial sources. (they still cant be passing mentions). The teat for this is to be able to construct a start class article from lean paraphrasing of only independent sources.
 * You are confusing independent sources with secondary sources, independent sources must be intellectually distinct and neutral third parties from the primary organization and have no COI, which is applied very tightly to include anyone who may benefit from promotion. HighKing is infact correct in his analysis that references including an interview cannot be used in this context (this is a long standing consensus). &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  22:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, "such as" in WP:CORPDEPTH leaves open the possibility of other examples besides the ones in the list. Still, the list is the only definition given of what "trivial or incidental" means, and even a brief mention like the one in the CNN article is far different from any of the examples in the list—in particular, from the example of a "passing mention": "identifying a quoted person as working for an organization". The CNN article identifies Bitnation's virtual IDs as an answer to the question asked in the article's title. Nothing in WP:CORPDEPTH supports the classification of that mention as "trivial or incidental", brief though it is.
 * Any "longstanding consensus" achieved in AfDs (which appear to attract a select group, distinct from the much larger mass of editors who over time produce the editing consensus described in WP:EDITCONSENSUS) must yield to the text of policies and even guidelines. There is nothing in WP:N, WP:CORPDEPTH, or WP:PRIMARY (or even in the essay WP:IS) to support the exclusion of a source as non-independent because it contains, or even is solely, an interview (though the latter case would make it primary).
 * My objection to page deletion, much more so than to removal of material from the text of a page, is precisely that an AfD "consensus" for deletion forecloses, rather than furthers, the true consensus achievable by editing. Page deletion breaks the chalkboard, rather than merely erasing and rewriting it. For Wikipedian experts and power users this may not be true. But most casual editors of Wikipedia, however knowledgeable they may be about article subject matter, are not going to go through WP:REFUND or similar processes to raise a deleted page from the dead. Deletion ought to be reserved for cases where it is unlikely that a chalkboard will ever be needed for that particular topic, or where WP:BLP or similar creates an urgency to deletion that is not normally present. Bitnation is neither kind of case.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to add to what says, the criteria for establishing notability is stricter than the criteria for supporting claims made in articles. A claim contained in an article that is supported by a reference to an interview may be acceptable for inclusion in the article, but it is not acceptable for establishing notability. References for the purposes of establishing notability must be intellectually independent and this can be very difficult in circumstances where the majority of the facts and data is provided by the interviewee in response to questions and especially when the reference provides no independent analysis or opinion on the provided quotes. I disagree with your assertion that the Forbes article meets the criteria as an independent source since the article clearly states "Here is what BitNation says about itself" followed by two mentions-in-passing. Similarly, the Telegraph article is a long interview but has no "intellectual independence" and provides no independent analysis or opinion on the information provided by the founder during an interview.  -- HighKing ++ 13:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition I fail to see how a consensus reached on an AfD page is somehow subservient to a consensus reached elsewhere. Nor does deleting this page destroy 'the chalkboard', this whole article could be summed up in a few paragraphs and put on the Blockchain article, where your arguments would infact merit its inclusion. nor does its deletion stop it being recreated if and when actual notability arises. 13:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC) &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  16:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Easily meets notability. Just click the links in the "Find sources" searches at the top. Here for instance are many significant mentions in major reliable independent sources: . -- Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Pointing to the result of a google search isn't helpful. Any chance you could post a link or two that we could check against the criteria for establishing notability? Otherwise your !vote is probably a waste of time since the result isn't about counting !votes. If there are so many "significant mentions", should be no bother to you at all. -- HighKing ++ 16:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The first 10 results at that link include articles from Forbes, The Telegraph, Wired (two articles), CNN, The Economist, and UNESCO. You are welcome to take a look. Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Having checked the first ten pages, couldn't find these sources. decided the use search terms like ("bitnation" cnn) etc. CNN article. ISIS is everywhere -- is it time for a global passport? - a passing mention only in an article about passports. Forbes article. Ethereum: Towards A New BitSociety - a passing mention only in an article about a cryptocurrency.  The Telegraph article. article - The article is about Liberland, Bitnation features along with several other companies, In two paragraphs.  The Wired article. Radical Politics - this is a better source, if you think wired is reliable. the article simply explains what happened in a PR event held by Bitnation, including some details given in a press release.  The Econonmist. [ttps://www.economist.com/news/world-if/21724906-trust-business-little-noticed-huge-startups-deploying-blockchain-technology-threaten Blockhain Startups] - this is a passing mention in an article about the blockchain that covers several companies.  UNESCO. netexpo forum - A swedish refugee initiative won a public recognition award, Bitnation supplied some of the technology.  I have already been through these sources, they don't show CORPDEPTH or GNG.  &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  09:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability is a low bar, as what Wikipedia wants is reliable information about anything that catches the attention of the world at large. Google itself can be used as the reliable source to show, with a Google search as the objective evidence, that, as per the WP:N nutshell, the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time.  These searches can be found with WP:BEFORE D1 on Google web, Google news, Google books, and Google scholar.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you click the link I actually provided: ? The very first page provides all of the links I referred to. This two-page Forbes article has five paragraphs on BitNation. This Telegraph article has seven paragraphs on BitNation. This Wired article has three paragraphs on BitNation. This UNESCO link documents the Grand Prix of 2017 awarded to BitNation Refugee Emergency Response. This Wired article has ten paragraphs about BitNation. This CNN article presents BitNation as the prime example of the article's subject, which is global passports. This The Economist article presents BitNation as the prime and only example of "virtual countries". Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As per User:Syrenka V, and also as per evidence from Google and the WP:N nutshell that this topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Further update on sources: I've now incorporated into the page a number of the references provided by and  above, as well as the academic sources I referenced above by Jamil Khan and Marcella Atzori, and a few more sources I found, such as Juri Mattila's ETLA working paper, Brett Scott's UNRISD working paper, and Morgen Peck's IEEE Spectrum news article. Khan characterizes Bitnation as a "paradigmatic example" of the techno-libertarian ideology of "governance through blockchain" that is the principal topic of his article. Likewise, Atzori's 2015 paper states the following (emphasis added):
 * Although the view about the role of the State may differ, a growing category of political technopreneurs and evangelists of decentralization have already developed projects for the creation of cryptonations – namely stateless, do-it-yourself governance services entirely based on the blockchain (e.g. Bitnation12). The aim of this paper is to critically examine such proposals, which challenge to varying degrees the traditional mechanisms of State authority, citizenship and democracy.
 * My addition of new sources should not be construed as tacit acceptance of deletionist arguments against the use of sources already present in the page. Quite apart from meta-level questions of how the relevant policies and guidelines should be interpreted, some of those deletionist arguments very seriously misread the actual content of the sources they criticize. Their characterization of Frances Coppola's article in Forbes is an extreme example. After Coppola writes "Here is what Bitnation says about itself", literally every word of the main text of her article thereafter is devoted to exposition or critique of Bitnation's position as she sees it. She first provides a quotation with a link to Bitnation's site, followed by a two-sentence summary of Bitnation's claims as she understands them, comparing Bitnation to "Galt's Gulch". Then follow five paragraphs of critique, the first beginning with "Except that it isn't", comparing Bitnation to a religious cult, and describing it as a rigid rule-based system posing dangers to human social organization. What is more, the discussion of Bitnation is not a digression, but the culmination of her critique of Ethereum in the rest of the article. She explicitly presents Bitnation as the logical conclusion, presented by Ethereum itself, of Ethereum's proposed changes to the nature of contract law: "Ethereum has the answer. A new, global, virtual legal system. In fact a new, global, virtual country."
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment on relevant policies and guidelines: when I wrote my comments above about interviews, I was unaware of the existence of the essay WP:INTERVIEW. As an essay, it is not authoritative, but it doesn't need to be: it makes a strong and articulate case, from the relevant policies and guidelines, that articles based around interviews can nevertheless contain considerable material that can be used as a secondary and independent source, and thus can be used to support claims of notability. The argument is similar to the one I made above, but much more detailed.
 * As to why a "a consensus reached on an AfD page is somehow subservient to a consensus reached elsewhere", and why even a "longstanding consensus" across many AfDs cannot override the straightforward text of policies and guidelines, this is a direct application of the section WP:CONLEVEL within WP:CONSENSUS:
 * Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.
 * As noted above, AfDs appear to attract a select group—I'm referring to those who habitually frequent AfDs, not those who show up at a particular AfD because they are interested in its specific topic. Those within this group may be tempted to treat previous AfDs on other topics as if they were precedent-setting case law, but I see no support for that within WP:CONSENSUS or other policies and guidelines. How would new or infrequent participants in AfDs even know about these traditions? Should they take the word of AfD veterans for it? There are no lawbooks of AfDs, and administrators are not judges (nor are AfD participants jurors or advocates). There are only the policies and guidelines, and a few ancillary forums like the noticeboards. (It is not past AfDs, but these forums, which are searchable, that are Wikipedia's closest analogue to case law.)
 * The picture WP:CONSENSUS paints is of consensus emerging mostly from long-term editing or talk page discussion, which, because it is long-term, involves the participation of the whole community, or rather of all within it who care about the particular topic under discussion. Editing and discussion are in turn constrained by the policies and guidelines, and by forums such as noticeboards, which are also supposed to be visible to the whole community and subject to long-term scrutiny and eventual consensus. These are the authorities to which an individual AfD discussion is answerable. It is not answerable to other, past AfDs.
 * This is not just a theoretical issue but a practical one, and it goes far beyond the question whether articles containing interviews can influence notability. I've already seen a marked disconnect in AfDs, including this one, between the actual text of policies and guidelines (especially WP:PRIMARY, WP:ORGIND, AND WP:CORPDEPTH) and the way some attempt to use them. If an interpretation of a policy or guideline cannot be justified directly from its text, aided at most by e.g. noticeboard rulings, then it cannot be justified by reference to past AfDs either.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep

The article described Bitnation in its linguistic, technological, journalistic, and commentary terms with 67 references alongside 3 books and 3 external links. Most of the claims are verifiable by notable news agencies worldwide. The tone is informative, which also include points of views from positive, negative, questioning, criticizing, and side-watching people from researches of notable universities, notable audit firms, and recognizable news agencies. As a major contributor to the current article (by content only), I have also followed the consensus to avoid bitcoin-related magazines, even though important information may undeniably skipped during the secondary research process. As I read through the comments above, most of the negative comments regarding the article are either POV, verifiabiility and notability. As an audience, I see a lot of improvement specifically regarding the suggestions, which includes
 * In December 2014 Bitnation announced it was working with Johan Nygren’s resilience.me Basic Income protocol, built on a mutual insurance-like structure!

— T2cnwH7v2m3 (talk) 18:47, 27 September 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.