Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INX (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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

INX (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

notability not established, "first registered token IPO" does not warrant notability. sources are not guaranteeing notability. A mention in Calcalist or Globes is expected for any token launching from israeli initiative. these are all run-of-the-mill PR pieces that you can find covering every single token out there, it should require more to assert notability. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. The Israeli media coverage of INX published in the major israeli economic media outlets and written by staff writers, it's not a PR-material. 2. Israel it the leading state for high-tech industry and companies per capita, the media is writing only about a small percentage of them. Tzahy (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: Barely found anything about the company aside from its activities. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: INX received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Tzahy (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, , you both appear to be referencing WP:GNG. The applicable guideline is WP:NCORP with special attention to references wrt WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Can you link to any of the references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notabilty?  HighKing++ 21:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi User:HighKing. I meant what I said. I'm not going to reference the article, just voice an opinion based on my research. I do often find more WP:ORGCRIT sources than others but do not have time to reference each and every article. For the current Israel queue that is two deletes and one keep. Best, gidonb (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, just trying to point out that your !vote will likely be discounted because saying "passes the GNG" is insufficient reason and especially when GNG isn't even the appropriate guideline and NCORP is hella stricter.  HighKing++ 13:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is plainly incorrect. Several of the articles below are valid, independent articles, written by professional journalist in fine, national newspapers. Some closers fall for who is loudest but definitely not all. The subject meets WP:NCORP through WP:ORGCRIT. (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your opinion would carry a lot more weight if there was some substance to your response. Very easy to provide a vague "Your analysis is plainly incorrect", much more difficult to show where my analysis is flawed. A statement that the subject meets NCORP through ORGCRIT is also rather vague especially as the basis of my objections were that nearly all of the articles specifically fail ORGIND.  HighKing++ 13:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information, advertorials or announcements or interviews, etc. which seem to make up most of the references. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate sufficient references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * one (Fox News), two (propertyfundsworld), three (Finance Magnates), four (Crowd Fund Insider), five (Finance Magnates), six (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), seven (Globes), eight (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), nine (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), ten (Crowd Fund Insider), eleven (Calcalist), twelve (Finance Magnates), thirteen (Yahoo Finance), fourteen (Jerusalem Post), fifteen (Yahoo Finance), sixteen (Yahoo Finance), seventeen (Globes). Tzahy (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of copying the list of references from the article to here as if that's supposed to evidence the establishment of notability. Here's a breakdown of each one on those references in respect of NCORP - there are insufficient references that can be used to establish notability.
 * An interview on YouTube with a company official. Probably fails every one of our guidelines for establishing notability and deffo fails WP:ORGIND
 * Announcement on propertyfundworld.com by a customer] with a quote from the INX CEO. Based entirely on this PR announcement from the company. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Another PR announcement appears on financemagnates.com based entirely on this PR announcement from the company, also fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This in crowdfundinsider acknowledges in the first few sentences that the article is based on a previous announcement by the company and a read through reveals the article does not contain "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
 * Another financemagnates.com regurgitated PR announcement, fails ORGIND
 * A "Notice of Effectiveness" from sec.gov, a "Registration Statement" filed by the company and a draft "Registration Statement" also filed by the company, all fail the test for "Independent Content" as the filings were made by the company and these references fail CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND.
 * This article from globes.co.il looked promising ar first but its just regurgitating information provided by the company and fails to deliver any "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". Fails ORGIND.
 * This article from crownfundinsider is like a pre-announcement but is based on information from an anonymous source has "knowledge of the matter". The information about the company is standard template stuff from the company, article fails ORGIND.
 * This from calcalistech is also based on company announcement and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
 * Another reference from financemagnates based entirely on an interview with the company's founder, fails ORGIND.
 * This from Yahoo Finance is based on PR from the company and from the Gibraltar government. Fails ORGIND.
 * This in the Jerusalem Post article attempts to explain the company's "product" (which had just been cleared as the first digital asset IPO by the SEC). It doesn't talk about the *company* though, fails CORPDEPTH.
 * finance.yahoo.com based on PR from a partner, fails ORGIND
 * Another finance.yahoo.com article based on PR, fails ORGIND
 * Another globes.co.il reference, the best of the bunch in my opinion, but doesn't contain sufficient "Independent Content". Mostly it is regurgitating information and risks highlighted in the company's prospectus and it ends with some quotes from IPO underwriters, fails ORGIND
 * This from PRNewsWire is PR, fails ORGIND
 * None of the above meet NCORP and I'm happy to discuss. If you've any other references you believe meet NCORP (it would be helpful if you'd check first though, so of the above were obvious fails) please post a link below.  HighKing</b>++ 13:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Not quite good enough. HighKing showed how it fails NCORP. Coin (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete routine press release masquerading as wikipedia article.  DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.