Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R3 (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. Particularly per WP:NCORP for the sources available. David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

R3 (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

notability not established for blockchain company with media coverage mostly from press releases (not satisfying WP:NCORP) but also a lot of non-independent coverage (see WP:ORGIND) Ysangkok (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Related discussions:

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There are a number of companies who are basically just buzz-words in this sector. Unclear to me that R3 is one of them. As the comment below says, they are going to be running the whole Italian banking reconciliation system this year. (https://www.abi.it/Pagine/news/ABILABspuntaInterbancariaDLT.aspx) If we don't consider the Italian Bankers Association (ABI) as a mark of credibility, again as a G7 economy, what is? Also, on the article, the list of backers for R3 is meaningful. This isn't some crypto that no one has heard of. Most the major players from the US and EMEA are invested. User:FreddoBarChocolate 15:22, 22 September 2020 (GMT)

All references seem to meet notability guidelines, they have been consistently written about in international media such as the FT, Wall Street Journal, Reuters etc. Information on this page is sourced to independent and credible titles such as these.Travelsandwords (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Surely a simple cleanup of some of the references that are causing issues is a more appropriate response than total deletion?45.178.73.238 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * This company's product is about to run... well, the whole italian banking reconciliation system by October 1, 2020. Y'know... Italy, G7 economy? Yep. This link (https://www.abi.it/Pagine/news/ABILABspuntaInterbancariaDLT.aspx) talks about its adoption by the Italian Bankers Association (ABI) and it's on their official site (yes, it's in italian, but you can autotranslate it, I chose this because it's authoritative). The R3 site is really underwhelming: just by looking at that you get the idea they are just another startup full of buzzwords and nonsense. But their product is... IDK, it seems to inspire confidence in financial institutions. Also here (https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjessel/2020/05/22/why-nasdaqs-partnership-with-r3-is-great-for-digital-asset-adoption/#3e2deaa7630f) Forbes referring to the fact they're developing a ledger-based transaction solution for Nasdaq. For what I can see, they seem pretty relevant to me. Zingus J. Rinkle (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The usual PR, announcements, churnalism, articles relying solely on interviews and information provided by the company. The first link provided by Zingus above is an announcement on a related parties website with no attributed author/journalist, fails WP:ORGIND. The Forbes reference in on the "sites" part of the website, fails WP:RS. Not a single reference meets the criteria for notability and I suspect the David E. Rutter topic page would also fail at AfD. It someone wants to !vote Keep, please provide references that meet NCORP guidelines.  HighKing++ 16:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep A number of these references seem to meet the guidelines - for example https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/business/dealbook/bitcoin-technology-piques-interest-on-wall-st.html and https://www.ft.com/content/225d32bc-4dfa-11e8-97e4-13afc22d86d4

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of satisfying either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 18:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please can you explain how coverage can be "trivial" as per WP:CORPDEPTH given the types of publications (top tier international media like the Financial Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal etc)? Please can you provide a few examples - genuinely interested to see your thinking here...45.178.73.238 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will use the article from the Financial Times as my example. As you can see, they mention R3 only in one paragraph, and they only mention that it enabled them to "process the relevant documents in 24 hours". This sentence is completely unusable. The documents referenced are from the previous paragraph, but we know nothing about them at all, other than that they relate to foodstuffs. Also, what does it even mean to "process" documents? The article doesn't explain it. There is no useable information in that article, it is just propping up companies and products. How can you call this "in-depth coverage", which is what CORPDEPTH is about? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is helpful, thanks for providing the example. I have removed information sourced to references that cannot be classified as 'in depth coverage' from the page.Travelsandwords (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me also add, the banner on the newspaper does not, on its own, denote any notability on the company - the most important part of any reference is the content. There are two key considerations. 1) Does the reference provide in-depth coverage on the company (and not just mentions-in-passing or one-line descriptions etc). 2) Is there "Independent Content" (as defined in WP:ORGIND), therefore not just rehashed details from customer announcements or interviews/quotations from company officers, etc). The reason why I'm commenting is that you say that you "removed information sourced to references that cannot be classified as 'in-depth coverage' and you therefore may have misinterpreted the *differences* between sources that you may use to place detail in the article (mainly WP:RS) and the quality of sources we require to establish notability.  HighKing++ 20:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Typical startup article. References are run-of-the-mill business news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.   scope_creep Talk  16:48, 26 September 2020 (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.