Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Ledger


 * 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Sheldybett (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Power Ledger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP as a non-notable company. R2d232h2 (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as it stands - almost all coverage I could find was press releases on minor energy news sites, and overexcitement at crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve; finally I get to disagree with David! I was able to find a good amount of RS that should meet or exceed requirements of WP:NCORP: Australian Financial Review (AFR), Tech Crunch (might be churnalism), 9 News - Branson win, CNET, AFR - Northwestern Uni, Bloomberg, AFR - electric cars, Fortune - Puerto Rico, AFR, IBTimes - ICO, and Sydney Morning Herald, before I stopped looking. Pegnawl (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * These sources are largely reprints of the companies' aspirations, not about anything that was factually existing at the time - David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:ORGIND and are about future-looking statemens, company aspirations, and / or interviews, such as: AFR "Power Ledger to Deploy Blockchain Energy Trading"; "Power Ledger Builds Energy Business Amid Bitcoin Madness"; "Blockchain may soon be helping Puerto Rico", etc (emphasis mine). WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in WP:CORPDEPTH, or anywhere in WP:NCORP, does it note that aspirational articles or articles laden with future looking statements don't qualify as 'significant' coverage for the purpose of establishing notability. Could you please expand on this rationale? The WP:ORGIND I get, and I can see how it would apply to some of the refs. Pegnawl (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (All due respect; I just haven't seen that rationale applied when it comes to sniffing out notability - content wise, absolutely, but that's a separate matter.) Pegnawl (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is clearly stated in WP:NCORP that "dependent coverage" based primarily on press statements of future aspirations does not count towards notability. I would not have nominated it for deletion if I was not sure that there was nothing of relevance available. R2d232h2 (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything about futuristic or aspirational press on that policy page, clearly stated or otherwise. Are you arguing that all of the press cited above is pulled from press releases, press kits or interviews, and therefore fails to meet NCORP? That I would buy, but that is a different argument than 'independent press about future-looking statements and company aspirations automatically fail SIGCOV,' which is how I read the above, and I find no support for this in policy. Pegnawl (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just where do you think all the claims of future aspirations came from in these stories, if not from company statements? - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Journalists write about future tense topics all the time. They pull from company statements and include (hopefully) more reporting to bring context to a story. I was thinking that, should Bloomberg, Fortune, AFR and others be so compelled to write about Power Ledger's activities, planned or otherwise, that brings notability to the subject. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the spectrum of churnalism in Notability discussions, pardon the ignorance. Pegnawl (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The sources provided by . This article from The Australian Financial Review is titled "Blockchain start-up Power Ledger criticised for paying spruikers". An article with that title clearly is independent of Power Ledger.  The book notes: "Case Study Four Power Ledger has developed a Blockchain-enabled P2P energy-trading platform that allows for the secure and transparent allocation of value from distributed energy resources, including roof-top solar PV, to the owners of the PV systems, even if they are not the consumers of energy. Where individuals produce more energy than they consume, the Blockchain-based trading platform supports the sale of excess energy to other consumers within a mini grid. ...  Relying on smart-meter data, the trading platform can distribute returns to the owners of the roof-top PV systems, or where the PV systems are provided under microfinancing terms, to the original finance provider until the initial cost of the installation is paid back."  The book notes: "Multiple start-ups are developing peer-to-peer renewable energy trading platforms to increase the usage of renewable energy. The Australian company, Perth-based Power Ledger, is developing a peer-to-peer renewable energy-trading platform, using the blockchain. The platform enables consumers to buy, sell, or exchange excess renewable electricity, directly with each other. This works via crypto-tokens, which are tradable digital assets representing a certain energy production. These can be sold to others via the Blockchain to prevent double spending and ensure valid transactions. As a result, Blockchain enables Power Ledger to offer a transparent, auditable, and automated marketplace that settles and clears transactions between consumers in minutes, without the need for a trusted centralised third party such as an energy company which charges a fee for its services. The objective of the platform is to empower consumers in relation to their energy consumption and production." The book further notes: "Many incumbent energy companies do not favour empowering their customers and decentralising energy creation and distribution. Despite these challenges, Power Ledger is steadily expanding its pilot projects for peer-to-peer energy trading, with a new pilot project starting in Auckland, New Zealand as well as Freemantle, Australia to take part in peer-to-peer energy trading."  The book has a section titled "Jemma Green: Power Ledger—Disrupting Australia's Energy System". The book notes: "As if this was not enough for this highly charged, dynamic woman she went on to establish a most remarkable new company the same year: Power Ledger, a software company that uses blockchain technology to provide a transparent, auditable and automated market trading and clearing mechanism for the sale of energy. Power Ledger, offers a new service in the energy sector, that is set to disrupt the traditional centralised and largely fossil electricity industry, and pave the way for a rapid take-up of distributed and community-based renewable electricity. ... That wasn’t just the flick of a switch in her head one night. Jemma first spent several years researching applications of solar power at the innovative WGV urban village development by LandCorp with the City of Fremantle, in Perth Western Australia. At WGV, the Gen Y House is a three strata apartment project, where Jemma and LandCorp designed a shared solar and battery system. She then began to understand how energy storage, combined with solar PV, could enable this WGV residential village to have its own micro-grid for electricity distribution and joining forces with the three other apartment builders on the WGV site, she bid for and won a large Federal Government ARENA grant to fund some of the costs of solar power and battery storage. Initially looking at this as a sub-metering problem Jemma realised that the combination of blockchain and bitcoin technology would enable the strata tenants to share the consumption and the costs of the solar power and battery system. The other cofounders and Jemma also realised the technology could work across the energy network to enable peer-to-peer energy trading—and from that Power Ledger was born. Jemma had gone through a fabulous process of learning, conceptualization, experimentation and prototype development to arrive at a sound technology and business model." The book includes quotes from Jemma Green.</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Power Ledger to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Again, this is forward-looking statements that fail WP:NCORP. You are doing your wall-of-text filibustering thing again - you need to assess your sources, not just cut'n'paste search results and assert they prove notability - David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Review of book sources (all three are no good)
 * First book: That "Martin, David" or "David Martin" who helped write that chapter is the co-founder of Power Ledger. How am I sure he's the right one? Scroll up on Google Books to the beginning of the chapter on page 137 and he's labeled as such.
 * Second book: Writer1 is Mark van Rijmenam who currently calls himself a "#BigData & #Blockchain Influencer" on his verified Twitter account, though the earliest archive.org snapshot from 2014 has no mention of "blockchain." It appears to have been added between July 2016 and November 2016. His website calls itself "the one-stop source for big data, blockchain and artificial intelligence." A recent article they published is titled "What Big Data and UFOs Have in Common". The current front page article with the title in big letters is "3 Major Ways the Internet of Things is Revolutionizing E-Commerce", written by a guy with an SEO company. Writer2 is Philippa Ryan who seems more reliable, but she joined this Australian blockchain association along with the co-founder of Power Ledger, Jemma Green.
 * Third book: Written by Martin Anda who has said nice things about Power Ledger's involvement with his university. Џ 02:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The The Australian Financial Review article titled "Blockchain start-up Power Ledger criticised for paying spruikers" is an independent reliable source critical of Power Ledger. It meets WP:NCORP. Notability (organizations and companies) says: "Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement" include "... a book passage ... focusing on a product or organization". I have provided book passages including a passage in a Routledge book and significant coverage in a Springer Nature book. That Power Ledger has received significant coverage in two books from reputable publishers strongly establishes notability.  Fair point that the first book source is not independent because a co-founder is among the 13 co-authors of the chapter.  I do not consider the other two book sources to be disqualified. They were published in reputable publishers and the accuracy of their content has not been questioned.  For the second book, that Mark van Rijmenam tweeted about an article his company wrote about big data and UFO sightings (that included research The Economist did about how UFO sightings happen during "drinking hours") does not affect the reliability of the book. That his Twitter profile did not have a mention of "blockchain" until 2016 also does not affect the reliability of the book. That Philippa Ryan is a member of the same blockchain association as one of the cofounders does not make her not independent of the subject.  For the third book, that Martin Anda "has said nice things about Power Ledger's involvement with his university" does not make him not independent of the subject.  Cunard (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Here is another source about Power Ledger:<ul><li> Yin Cao is from Energy Blockchain Labs, China. There is more information about Energy Blockchain Labs at https://www.ibm.com/case-studies/energy-blockchain-labs-inc. The book provides four paragraphs of coverage about the subject.  Here is analysis from the fourth paragraph about Power Ledger's challenges: "Regulatory pressure and funding will be the main challenges for the future of Power Ledger. On one hand, very few major power companies are willing to promote a distributed energy system; on the other hand, a P2P power transaction system will reduce people's dependence on a centralized power grid, and therefore, centralized energy suppliers would probably try to convince the government to charge a power grid usage expense, which would affect the large-scale application of a P2P power system. Moreover, Power Ledger has a fatal defect, which is the token it requires, named POWR. This project requests all energy sales and service third parties who use the Power Ledger platform to purchase POWR; otherwise they will not be able to provide services to customers. This means enterprises on the Power Ledger platform need to put a lot of dead money into it, which significantly affects the passion of partners." The book has critical analysis about Power Ledger. It notes that Power Ledger "has a fatal defect, which is the token it requires" and that Power Ledger's main challenges are "regulatory pressure and funding".</li></ul> Cunard (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per an overall source review. Many of the articles are bylined and written by staff writers that have no connection with the firm. Statements that the available sources are reprints of press releases, without qualification or proof of said claims, is opinion-based conflation, rather than fact- and evidence-based. North America1000 12:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sources provided by meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Balkywrest (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment on sources: It's still a "delete" for me; even the sources presented as containing critical analysis discuss the company in future tense: "Regulatory pressure and funding will be the main challenges for the future of Power Ledger." WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2019 (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.