Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symbiont (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Symbiont (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

notability per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND not established, sources are merely reprinting whatever the company has announced in the press releases, there is no original research. press releases do not establish notability. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nomination.
 * This article is substantially the work of a single SPA, who edits on no other topics, and has frequently edit-warred questionable and simply bad sources in - and it shows. The present version is considerably toned down from the promotional nonsense the article used to be filled with, but is still functionally just a press release.
 * It's also blockchain promotional spam, even as the SPA has tried to argue that a company that sells blockchain software doesn't count as "content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed" per WP:GS/CRYPTO.
 * The present sources are all bad, as described in the nomination:
 * Marsh, Alastair (2019-01-23). "Nasdaq, Citi Join Novogratz in Funding Blockchain Firm Symbiont". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2019-06-28.
 * Funding details, not usable for notability; any claims about the company will have been company-supplied.
 * del Castillo, Michael; Schifrin, Matt (2020-02-19). "Blockchain 50". Forbes. Retrieved 2020-02-19.
 * Company-supplied, no WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Shen, Lucinda (2019-01-23). "Blockchain Startup Symbiont Raises $20 Million to Take Aim at a Cause of the Financial Crisis". Fortune. Retrieved 2019-11-14.
 * Funding details, not usable for notability; any claims about the company will have been company-supplied.
 * Chavez-Dreyfuss, Gertrude (2015-06-10). "U.S. tech company raises $1.25 mln from ex-NYSE Euronext CEO, ex-Citadel trader". Reuters. Retrieved 2016-06-01.
 * Funding details, not usable for notability; any claims about the company will have been company-supplied.
 * Bullock, Nicole (2015-06-09). "Ex-NYSE head among trading veterans backing blockchain start-up". Financial Times. Retrieved 2016-06-01.
 * Press release churnalism.
 * Kauflin, Jeff (2019-05-30). "Vanguard Is Now Using Blockchain Technology To Help Manage $1.3 Trillion In Index Funds". Forbes. Retrieved 2019-06-28.
 * Press release churnalism.
 * Eha, Brian Patrick (2017-12-12). "Vanguard leapfrogs cautious banks, unveils blockchain network plan". American Banker. Retrieved 2017-12-14.
 * Press release churnalism.
 * Marsh, Alastair (2019-10-03). "Vanguard to Challenge Banks' Grip on $6 Trillion Currency Market". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2019-10-24.
 * Press release churnalism.
 * None of these are adequate sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. If the article were kept, all would warrant being struck - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep These sources are publications of the highest quality and reputation. Because of vague and unsubstantiated criticism like the above, I initiated an ongoing RFC on the talk page to reach consensus on these matters, and the community seems to be generally of the opinion that the article is contentful, well-sourced and written in a fair and objective tone. I have taken it upon myself to work on this article, and am happy to put forth additional effort to address all actionable suggestions and complaints. (For the record, I have not stated that the article should not be subject to the guidelines of WP:GS/CRYPTO. Rather, I have said that the article should not be part of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, because the article has nothing to do with cryptocurrency, as per the description of that project.) -- Moontreasure (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The RFC was specifically about the phrasing, not about your promotional sourcing. Its name is literally "RFC on Promotional Tone" - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete As per WP:ORGIND, references should contain 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. None of the references meets this criteria as the content is invariably sourced back to the company. There is no independent opinion with in-depth information on the company. Topic fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing++ 11:25, 14 October 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.