Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NFTi Emporium


 * 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  00:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

NFTi Emporium

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

The notability of the subject is very much in doubt, likely fails WP:NORG, and also seems to conflict with WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT, especially concerning advertising and promotion. HenryTemplo (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. HenryTemplo (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @HenryTemplo What sentences exactly shows advertising ?
 * Can you please quote ?
 * The page talks first about the company, then it talks about its CEO then at the bottom it talks about some of its
 * notable works that are known in notable art galleries.
 * If that would classify as advertising then so would this Crypto.com Ekcs27 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, generally, it's not a good idea to compare this article with the article on Crypto.com, as that is currently rated stub-class (please see WP:WHATABOUT). Secondly, the general tone of the article is generally written like an advert, as someone with a COI, it may be hard to recognise this, but it is highly likely that a editor who has never heard of NFTi like myself would agree that this article reads too much like an advert (essentially, if I were to give you a quote, it would be the whole article). Regardless, have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @HenryTemplo I would have to fully disagree with your sentence "if I were to give you a quote, it would be the whole article", it literally is impossible for the whole article
 * to appear as an advert, that is because there are descriptions about what the company does, what product the company specializes in,
 * where and by which other companies the company is notable and recognized by, where the company operates etc.
 * If you say that writing these information is advertising then I do not know what exactly you are talking about, because most companies if not
 * all company descriptions are pretty much like that.
 * If you mean that the word and the sentence selection used in the article is constructed in such a way that it looks like advertising then I understand,
 * this can be amended and different words and different sentences can be used. But other than that you cannot just accuse the article of being advertising, because
 * it is not.
 * But I would have to disagree with you completely, the article clearly is talking about the companies facts and what it does, its not trying to advertise about its products.
 * If that is advertising then every company's wiki should be prone to be deleted as they are also describing their products and services in their wikipedia pages.
 * Regarding the article Crypto.com this is an excellent example that I gave as it reflects pretty much how our article is looking like,
 * it talks about
 * - what it is
 * - its products
 * - where it is operating from
 * - its board members
 * - and its sponsorships (i.e. its notability)
 * And in the same way the article NFTi Emporium is exactly talking about the same thing
 * it talks about
 * - what it is
 * - its products
 * - where it is operating from
 * - its board members or executive director
 * - and its notability (i.e. notable artworks) recognized by other companies
 * So if you cannot give a difference between these two and just throw some definitions such as e.g. COI, or wiki articles etc at me
 * and make it sound extremely vague what is exactly wrong with the article and every time just say that it looks like "advertising"
 * then it just looks extremely unfair and unprofessional to me, and looked like it is a coordinated attempt by users such as yourself
 * just to close this article for the sake of closing it.
 * We are a company recognized by many other companies across the blockchain industries and would like
 * that a Wikipedia page is constructed about us, that is all we are looking for here. Ekcs27 (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ekcs27, an advert can be all the things you have described, what matters is the tone. Subtle and not-so-subtle wording can change the tone from being a neutrally written encyclopaedia article to what looks like a description from the "About" section on a company Website. As I said, whenever editing with a COI, it can be difficult to see that perspective, just as if I tried to edit an article about a hypothetical company that I hypothetically work for, I would probably not word things with a NPOV. In this case, it would be best to see what other editors think about the neutrality and notability of the article. Have a good day! HenryTemplo (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, @Ekcs27, I'm worried that you misunderstand what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not a platform where companies can publish a page to promote themselves, Wikipedia is a free online encyclopaedia where editors can start articles (note the difference) about notable subjects. If you wish to boost your companies profile, may I humbly suggest you use a different website other than Wikipedia. Also, please also understand that if your article does get kept, it will not belong to you or your company, nor anyone else individually; anyone will be able to edit the article, and you will have no more editorial control then anyone else. Ultimately, if your company is truly notable, then another editor (who is uninvolved) will likely start the article. I'm afraid that's the way things work on Wikipedia, although I will take the opportunity now to wish you a good day! HenryTemplo (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well said, this platform is for knowledge sharing in a neutral fashion, promoting all points of view, so long as the topic is "notable" as described. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable company, trivial mentions in non-reputable sources or directly from the company. Crypto anything seems to be the flavour of the month now, most of it isn't notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b If that is amended then I suggest you take down the deletion proposal for this article.
 * Thank you Ekcs27 (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am unable to do so, that would be up to the admin. We are here to discuss notability. If you can give sources as described, it would help your case for keeping the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to show media coverage, I get exactly TWO hits in GNews in what look like clickbait sites. You're a long, long way from notability for Wikipedia. A feature review in the New York Times or Forbes, not a paid promotion piece, is what's needed to show notability. I don't see anything like that now. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b There is Bezinga and Digital Journal, which are extremely notable. Ekcs27 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources, as here: . Doesn't have to be the New York Times, but you're way off with those sources. Any coverage in national media? Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b We are in here https://www.benzinga.com/ and https://www.digitaljournal.com/ both are reputable in the financial world. As for extremely known companies such as BBC, CNN, or as you mentioned New York Times, we are not there yet as our company is is small at the moment. Ekcs27 (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You've mentioned these already, those aren't sources we can use to prove notability. If your company is small, it is likely not notable/needing an article in wikipedia at this time. Not every start-up gets an article here and most wouldn't have the required notability either. Please do not ping me every time, I've made my decision and you've shared the sources a few times already. Nothing notable about the company to warrant having an article in wikipedia, should be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable company, I actually PROD tagged this initially but someone took it to AfD, so no notability whatsoever. &#124; Zippybonzo &#124;  Talk &#124;  05:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not seem notable. Azuredivay (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete While Digital Journal may have some reliability, I don't think the article established the notability of the company. The coverage is not in-depth, and it may even be considered trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. In conclusion, notability is not established.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;     (contact)   13:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is promotional material and is extremely far from establishing notability.  Cite to WP:CORPDEPTH.  FalconK (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability at all.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 14:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No major extended coverage that would allow it to meet GNG. Thriley (talk) 14:22, 2 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.