Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mani Thawani


 * 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. I've hesitated a lot before closing this discussion. While most of the "delete" !votes have policy-based arguments, I find that the "keep" !votes are either WP:ILIKEIT or just some hand waving, i.e.: "meets X or Y", without going into detail how this article meets X or Y. I also find the participation of so many relatively new editors with only a few edits unusual and wonder if there has been some off-site canvassing. Whatever may be the case, I find that the "delete" !votes have the stronger arguments. Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Mani Thawani

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

It has no encyclopedic relevance, it does not have enough information to be considered an encyclopedic article. It has a certain promotional tone towards the person and «Mundo Crytpto». CarlosEduardoPA (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CarlosEduardoPA (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency,  and Spain.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I don't find the Keep votes here very persuasive in countering the nominator's argument that this is a promotional article. Every week we delete articles on cryptocurrency "experts". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: No additional discussion since last relist, let's try this again. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep – per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG.  Bradford   (Talk)  11:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete He's mentioned a zillion times in media, but the stories aren't about him. He's an expert on xyz subject, giving his opinions for the article... Delete as no sources found about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * keep - the person is notable has been mentioned in various sources.Althair (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources. Ivanbetanco43 (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

User:Editorsinpulso‬ (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorsinpulso (talk • contribs) Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd delete, as mostly he's just being called on for opinions. The main referencing used to support his biography is basically no more than an interview. The El Correo article's writer has peppered it with "he claims", "according to him", and gives no indication of having done any fact-checking whatsoever - in fact they make it abundantly clear they are merely repeating what he wants said. We shouldn't have articles on entrepreneurs that are entirely sourced to their own statements about themselves. Elemimele (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, the sources available are nothing more than promotional puffery, WP:GNG failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: The individual is relevant, for example, the Forbes note that talks about the award he received only mentions him in the part where he gives a few words of thanks for the rest. He is NOT his own source. Do we expect him not to give a few words after the award? or the quotes about its origin... tell me if it is not with your word, how to know these data with certainty of all individuals in general? Shall we travel to the past to verify it? Do we ask the government to tell us the taxes it declares? His citations are only used when he won the award (the words he gave) and to talk about his origin as a businessman, however, why it is relevant, he does not use his own word as references, the individual is really known in Spain for having an institute where he teaches topics related to blockchain and finance. A quick Google search is enough to see it
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The biographical article can be improved in terms of neutrality and more referenced information. --Luis1944MX (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I really do not understand why it deserves to be something promotional, the person has enough sources on the Internet such as ABC Economia or . It is quite notable in its country of origin.Bradford (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please keep. The article can be improved if they include reliable sources, in this way the article is neutralized. CristianTheMaster (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments: This is a travesty. A feel-good WP:BLP that overlooks several areas of controversy. A WP:SPA with 4 edits all on the subject should be used with caution. It would be nice if an admin could examine the article for neutrality which is a policy on What Wikipedia is not. The sources I read paint a different picture than the article (promotional). (See WP:NOTADVOCACY). An editor named Clear Alba, for El Correo (August 25, 2022) was not positive and right behind that Iratxe Bernal (September 1, 2022) stated the subject "claims to have earned ten million euros by providing training on blockchain technology". Maybe Wikipedia can give the subject a philanthropic award. The "free classes" initially cost $500 USD but are discounted to $299 USD for "membership". The platforms the subject company runs through have been considered "financial stalls", the company has been placed on the National Securities Market Commission's "grey list" for over a year. The subject had to refund money charged for a supposed free event. The total charged was a little over 49 euros and FACUA filed a complaint with the General Directorate of Commerce and Consumption of the Community of Madrid. I don't know a lot about the euro but 343,000 for a free event would have likely been a good haul. Parents have complained that their children are being "brainwashed", Concerning being licensed the subject stated, "since it is not a financial institution nor does it sell or advise on financial instruments, but is dedicated to education in the sector digital". He brags that 55,000 students have become investors. Spain has made new crypto laws for 2023 and many countries in the EU are doing the same. The price of MundoCrypto has lost around 96% of its highest value.  The good news is that Wikipedia likely will not suffer when the subject crosses the right line. The price of MundoCrypto has lost around 96% of its highest value. The good news is that Wikipedia likely will not suffer from advancing the sunjects notability. We can just use his legal issues as proof of notability.  --  Otr500 (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article can be improved, however the individual is relevant and better sources can be included such as and . Franco98silva (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Apparently, the individual has some significance. If the page has neutrality problems, it can always be improved to meet the neutral point of view. Miaow 18:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments: I have included more information about his controversial events as another user has already mentioned.Bradford (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Initially in the article, some events that could be considered controversial were omitted, however, reading the initial references of the article, at least two references were added that mention these controversial facts, as is the case of the report by Iratxe Bernal for El Correo "The National Securities Market Commission recalled days before the event that Mundo Crypto has been on its gray list for a year, the one that includes entities that, without registration or authorization from the market supervisor, «could be carrying out some kind of fundraising activity or providing some service of a financial nature." It also mentions that the charge of the 47 euros was to reserve a place in the event and it would be returned to those who finally attended the event, as a type of insurance so as not to have reservations for people who did not attend in the end, however after the complaint decided to return the amount to everyone whether they attended or not "On the other hand, the consumer association denounced to the General Directorate of Commerce and Consumption of the Community of Madrid that, despite announcing it as a free event, the organization demanded the collection of 47 euros (plus a commission of 2.35) for reserve the place and only intended to return this deposit to those who finally attended. After the complaint, the organizers announced the change of criteria and the general return of the 49.35 euros" Above, my parter, Otr500, mentioned the following "I don't know much about the euro, but 343,000 for a free event would probably have been a good loot" hinting at a fact that is based on assumptions peppered with phrases like "probably would have been a good loot "Now, regarding the inclusion of your company in the gray list by the National Securities Market Commission according to   "its function is to alert <>. The inclusion in the list does not imply any pronouncement on the conformity or not with the current regulations of the possible activity of the corresponding entities" But returning to the central issue that is the subject of this article, it is said that it has kinda a promotional tone, I am going to quote the report by Bárbara Bécares for GenBeta  critical and negative source that talks about the controversies and the inclusion of Mundo Crypto on the gray list of the CNMV however mentions "Mundo Crypto is the best-known cryptocurrency platform in Spain. Although it accumulates scandals (like other unregulated companies in this sector)"Althair (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well thanks . I have been sick and just got back from the hospital, doing better now, but I have not had a chance to look at things. I would like to point out to that severe neutrality problems are not just against policy as an editorial bias issue, it is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. WP:ATD-E states: If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.. Nonchalantly bringing it up in an AFD discussion, as supposedly an easily solvable problem, is not really a good thing. It is a start to add in "one" little itty-bitty transgression out of several so that might suffice until a later date. It just gets the curiosity flowing if a hesitancy to add the several not-so-good deeds is because of ulterior motives.   I would venture to surmise more than a few articles have not passed AFD because of severe neutrality issues. Do I think they are solved yet---Not in the least, but it is a start. I don't think there is enough significant independent coverage in reliable sources on the subject to account for encyclopedia coverage. The sources I looked at are more about the company, or interviews (that do not advance notability), and more than a few controversial commentaries, therefore if there is notability it would be on the company. --  Otr500 (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Added note: I just have a problem when a crypto guru keeps selling his wares (they have been referred to as "Crypto-evangelists") and a feel-good article is written in a non-NPOV way, knowing the token is down over 96%, and this money can not really be recovered, it is usually gone. In the US some consolation is that a person can write off up to $3,000 dollars a year and roll this over actually until death. Those that think that the $530 million lost by Coincheck in 2018, or the $8 billion dollars lost by FTX, or the crypto currency collapse (around 2 trillion lost) are just market corrections, blows my mind. They use the term ushered by David Marcus "It’s during crypto winters that the best entrepreneurs build the better companies,". It is not so easy for the multitudes that may have lost all their savings. My point is that as an excyclopedia with a NPOV goal, we should not post flowery resumes, nor promote people. Time will tell.  --  Otr500 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * comment: Let's remember that we are here discussing the article of the person as such, and not about the risks of investing in cryptocurrencies or how the financial markets react to them. We should not bring into consideration cases unrelated to the person in question in order to generalize his case. Based on the statement made by one of the users participating in the discussion, I will quote a neutral source such as the Presidency of the Government of El Salvador "This day, the Vice President of the Republic Felix Ulloa received in his office the deputies of the Bancada together with Mani Thawani, CEO and founder of Mundo Crypto, with his delegation ...... In the approach they talked about the adoption of Bitcoin as legal tender; the transformation in the education system to close the digital divide, technologically equipping all students in the country" "<> said Congressman Navarro." "The company is working to achieve the massive adoption of this industry through education, thus contributing to the financial inclusion of the whole society." To complement the above description, I will quote the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of El Salvador. "The same was founded by Manish Thawani, who serves as executive director of the referred multinational academy, which has positioned itself as a leader in the sector, with more than 50,000 students enrolled and a community of more than 200,000 people." In conclusion, in my view, the person is relevant beyond the divided opinions that may arise from cryptoassets as such.Althair (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources in the article. NYC Guru (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I mentioned earlier, certain modifications could be made to the article, mainly by the sources that were contributed by users that demonstrate the relevance of this person. Several of these notes and interviews are from independent media and publishers and I would not consider them advertorials or paid interviews (even more so when some of these seek to attack the subject himself), suggesting the person's notoriety as such. Franco98silva (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2023 (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.