Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogged Finance


 * 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. ✗ plicit  12:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Bogged Finance

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Very few independent sources, does not appear to pass WP:GNG. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The project has received significant coverage[External Link ] Coindesk (w/ Yahoo Finance), Cointelegraph both reputable and large news sources have covered the project, with 443 exact mentions of the project in news sources according to Google News the vast majority of which are are organic. It has also been used as a source of information for other cryptocurrency projects on sites like Vice.
 * Additionally, the project processes a quarter of a billion dollars of transactions monthly, and has ~2 million monthly users. For comparison Venmo had about 2x transaction volume when it had an article added to wikipedia in 2015. source: File:Pay_with_venmo.png. I also want to note Obscure_does_not_mean_not_notable, I understand Cryptocurrency projects are obscure to many editors but they do have huge numbers of users which brings coverage and notability. I do want to make clear my COI as I am involved in the project. L32007 (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to provide actual reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide significant coverage. Saying it has a lot of Google hits is not proving notability, see WP:GHITS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For clarity I was listing the number of news articles mentioning the project, not GHITS.L32007 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The link is to a Google news search. It does not provide evidence of reliable, independent, secondary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that per WP:NCRYPTO, crypto-centric news organizations cannot be used to establish notability. BilledMammal (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. L32007 (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - None of the sources in the current revision appear to meet WP:RS. I looked and could not find any better sources. As with many cryptos, the huge glut of unreliable crypto outlets makes it difficult to find sources, but in this case, I do not see any indication that better sources are being overlooked. Coindesk and CoinTelegraph aren't the worst sources in crypto, but neither is actually good. If that's the best that can be found, the article is not ready for mainspace. There was a passing mention in the caption of a photo on the article "Congressman's Comment on Volatile Shitcoins Spawns Volatile Shitcoins" from Vice. That's just about it, and that's not nearly enough. Grayfell (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't have significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Per WP:NCRYPTO, crypto news sites are not independent. - MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per my above comment about the inappropriateness of the available sources. BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nomination. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2022 (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.