Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Standard


 * 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. Consensus is pretty clear that interviews do not establish notability, and there are also concerns about promotional language. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Diamond Standard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recently started company selling a niche product. Several refs but do they establish notability? No indication of sales volumes - is anybody buying the company's product?

See also, comments already made here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

There has been significant, independent, reliable secondary source coverage (not related to press releases) in
 * Keep Escalating repeat coverage in The Royal Gazette (Bermuda) reporting substantial sales by a newly formed, fast growing regulated company. Only recently notable, seems likely to be more RS soon. Contrary to the smear campaign, this is not crypto -- they're talking about a regulated physical commodity..

As a reminder for the apparent ME TOO crowd below, read the article and references, instead of assuming...
 * 1)  Bloomberg (seven minute video segment during trading day)
 * 2)  Fox Business News (live video interview during trading day)
 * 3)  Opalesque
 * 4)  TDAmertitrade Network (live video interview during trading day)
 * 5)  Bernews
 * 6)  Coinbase
 * 7)  Royal Gazette Just this week1 2

How to apply the WP:NCORPcriteria
The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met: This article meets every one of the criteria. Previous Speedy Delete under G11 was unwarranted and is not evidentiary. -- Nixie9  ✉  13:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) significant coverage in
 * 2) multiple
 * 3) independent,
 * 4) reliable
 * 5) secondary sources.
 * Note: above comment by Nixie9 was modified here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Promotional article sourced to press-release churnalism and crypto sites and crypto site reprints (irrelevant for assertion of notability) - not independent RS coverage. I tagged the extensive list of press release rehashes and literally company sources that are being used to assert notability. This is why I tagged this article twice for speedy deletion as blatantly promotional. This article is a promotional spinoff of Cormac Kinney, which the creator of this article has been repeatedly removing tags on its equally dubious sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this was recently deleted on WP:G11 grounds and I would probably have kept it that way. The sourcing is pretty terrible, fails WP:PROMO and WP:NCORP. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as basic crypto-startup spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional spam, NCORP fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete while I disagree with the characterization of it as "spam", I don't really see multiple examples of WP:SIGCOV, and there's also a recentism/notnews/oneevent/sustained concern. Bottom line: the announcement of a company launching does not necessarily make the company notable. We shouldn't base articles on press releases, even if the press release is reported on in multiple sources of questionable reliability (like cryptocurrency trade publications). Because it fails NCORP, delete. – Levivich 15:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Levivich. Doesn't meet NCORP. Borderline promotional spam: G11 was probably appropriate. -- a they/them &#124; argue &#124; contribs 15:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even after trimming promotional content, still promotional, does not pass corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Damn. Kill it with fire.—S Marshall T/C 18:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nine. 9 significant, independent, reliable, secondary articles is not enough. -- Nixie9  ✉  19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete- thinly veiled advertising brochure. Reyk YO! 11:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The issue isn't that it hasn't gotten news coverage - it has - but whether the coverage is no more than routine, thus this fails WP:NCORP. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Nixie9. The Bloomberg, fox, and Royal Gazzette coverage alone, seem to me sufficient to pass NCORP. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All three of those are interviews, and thus WP:PRIMARY sources, which do not contribute to WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And, even if we were to have an article, nuke it and start again. It's intolerably promotional and there's no neutral, encyclopaedic revision to restore.—S Marshall T/C 15:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a single one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability, all are churnalism. Furthermore, I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content (this is the key bit and why the references provided to date all fail). Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like we're in that Twilight Zone where nobody makes sense. Bloomberg, Fox and TD segments and interviews, and Royal Gazette are somehow churnalism, not significant, not independent? Because a long segment on a national network has an interview, it somehow becomes primary? (it doesn't) Does anybody read the content, references and standards before !voting? If there's something non-factual or promotional, please fix it. This knee jerk negativity about new companies related to digital assets is unbecoming.-- Nixie9  ✉  22:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the near-unanimous negative response, I suggest that the Wikipedia notability and sourcing rules - particularly for corporations - don't say what you think they say - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And removing the tags on the bad sources really, really doesn't make the problems with those sources go away - David Gerard (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have addressed what I believe are incorrect about those tags on the Talk Page.-- Nixie9  ✉  04:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will be satisfied with whatever outcome the closing admin makes. Seeing that the response is only "Near Unanimous," I suggest that G11 Speedy Deletion rules don't say what you and RHaworth think they say!-- Nixie9  ✉  04:15, 30 November 2019 (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.