Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celsius Network (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The result was Nomination withdrawn. The Moose 00:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Celsius Network
AfDs for this article:


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

Celsius Network

Cryptocurrency exchange that did not satisfy corporate notability in February 2022, and was deleted as per Articles for deletion/Celsius Network, and is still not notable. An article on this business was restored on 13 June 2022, but what the reliable sources indicate is that the network ceased operation on 13 June 2022. If a company was not notable when it was in business, then it is not notable when it is out of business – unless its failure has itself satisfied general notability, which is not the case here.

A draft, Draft:Celsius Network, was also submitted and declined on 13 June 2022, and has been resubmitted. The draft can be kept for possible expansion in case the failure of the network itself satisfies general notability Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies,  and Economics. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * KEEP It is definitely notable, in fact, I would suggest it is actually notorious now as probably Ponzi scheme. As it is mentioned throughout the news as a collapsing cryptocurrency network in which many inventors, many of which are not sophisticated, are losing billions.  Many frauds/Ponzi articles are kept after the schemes inevitably collapse.  Thus there is no need to say that because this scheme has collapsed, it is no longer noteworthy -- in fact it is important that we remember these existed and who was involved.  Mentioned in the Washingont Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/06/13/celsius-crypto-bank-withdrawals-freeze/), Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-13/crypto-lender-celsius-freezes-withdrawals-fueling-market-rout), Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/technology/crypto-firm-celsius-pauses-all-transfers-withdrawals-between-accounts-2022-06-13/), Financial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/25ac1667-9f50-4f16-b553-448ea4582613).  So I do suggest keeping the article.  --User:SilentAfterAll.  — Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I worked on a draft about a year ago under a different title. I resubmitted it after all the latest news and updated the title to Draft: Celsius Network I did not realize that there was a different version that had already been submitted and reviewed. My draft has many more sources. I submitted it again today after the most recent rejection because I added more sources which I thought demonstrated notability. I regret if I've made things difficult for any editors. I think my version is much more extensive and demonstrates the notability of the subject: numerous articles about the subject in mainstream sources over a period of time. JournalismResearch (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep — There is sufficient coverage on this subject, largely due to the Bitcoin crash that's occurred due to Celsius Network. The reason why it's notable doesn't matter here; this is a very similar case to Libs of TikTok, where the article subject's notoriety warranted it a page rather than its preexisting status. And, as far as I know, Celsius isn't out of business, it's just shutting down withdrawals due to "extreme market conditions". New accounts can still be created and money can still be put into it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - The nominator needs to do some basic news searches and will find that Celsius Network is at the top of the financial and mainstream news as part of a larger cryptocurrency slump. The Reuters headline could not be clearer: "Crypto contagion fears spread after Celsius Network freezes withdrawals." Add to this Bloomberg, The Verge, Financial Times, Yahoo Finance, Barrons, et al. Suggest closing this early as it is a bad nomination. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 23:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage in La Presse, Le Journal de Montreal . Ample coverage in French. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep subject of widespread coverage, even NYT, Bloomberg, Reuters, etc just today. WP:SNOW is falling. What an utter waste of time by the nominator, bad form. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, the lender is top news everywhere, surely notable. Censorship is evil, and the attempt to censor an article from Wikipedia doubly so. Tiphareth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, for now. This would have been a potential delete barely keep before their apparent collapse, but freezing withdrawals has definitely caused additional coverage and notability. Skynxnex (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Extensive in-depth coverage in media, especially with the news this week. Thriley (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Nomination because general notability concerning its failure has now been met. The article as now revised marginally satisfies general notability, and should be further expanded.  Adding sources is not a substitute for adding information from the sources.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 14 June 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.