Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:CoinSwitch

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:CoinSwitch


Spam article on a coin exchange, supported by the usual mix of unreliable crypto websites and press releases. Two versions have existed over time, both written by WP:SPAs. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I previously deleted this as G11. I then restored it at the request of the editor. After I had deleted it, the thought remained with me that it perhaps was a borderline G11. I said to the editor, in phrases I had used before at various times:
 * I have restored it for you to work on, for it might be possible to improve it. One way of looking at  promotionalism is that if the article is suitable for a company web page, it is promotional, not encyclopedic; another is that a promotional article gives the information the company would want to give, rather than the information a reader might want to know; yet another, is providing information that would interest none but present or  potential participants or clients. associates.   Either way, it's promotional. You may not have intended it as such: the nature of some subjects is that it is difficult to write an article at all without it also having large elements of promotionalism;   the world is so full of promotional writing that people naturally write in that style; Wikipedia in particular, has so much promotional content from the earlier years when standards were lower that people assume that's what is wanted here. It will take us a long time tor remove it all, but the least we can do is not add to it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are a nice man. Feel free to close this if you like and revisit in a while. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't know what the significance of the above discussion is, but this is spam. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm currently working on redoing this article. New to Wikipedia (only worked on about half a dozen articles so far), so please excuse the errors. Ymed07 (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

,, and - thank you for your patience, and apologies for the previous draft. I spent some time editing other pages and reading some others even more. After coming back to this page today, I realized the errors I had made due to my inexperience with Wikipedia. The page did read like the company's website and seemed promotional. I have now made the following changes to it:


 * Corrected tone throughout the article. Removed mentions of any benefits to users that read like PR material. Instead, I have added simple, neutral explanations of the company's model where required, and simply removed the other content that could not be rephrased.
 * Replaced all low quality sources with links from more reputed publications - such as BBC, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg Quint, Inc42, Business Standard, Economic Times, and more.
 * I've also added a section on 'Regulatory concerns', since, as DGG advised, the page should provide information a reader may want to know, not just what a company may want to show. I also added similar content to the second paragraph of the page.
 * Minimized mentions of the company's announcements (such as addition of supported cryptocurrencies) since they did not seem worthy of coverage. Have left a few announcements since they seemed to be notable from a cryptocurrency standpoint. Please analyse.
 * A small section called 'Recognition' remains. I was not sure if it should be removed since when I checked the Wikipedia pages of the company's biggest competitors - Changelly and Shapeshift, both seemed promotional to me about their size and reputation, so I believed this page may want to highlight the company's coverage as an alternate. Please remove if necessary.

Hope this draft is acceptable. Please let me know if there are more changes I should make. Thank you for your patience again.

Ymed07 (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

PS: If you could help me with how to upload images, I can add the logo to the page. Haven't been able to figure that out myself yet. Thanks


 * I think,, that you have done about as much as it is possible to do with this article. Unfortunately, those references that are of high quality seem to talk about various aspects of the industry, not this company specifically.  I think that it it is very difficult within our rules to write articles on companies in this industry; there is relatively little distinguishing them which could not equally be seen as promotionalism . The only likely possibilities for articles would be industry leaders in either size, prominence, or historical role--or those which have been the focus of major scandal or regulatory action. Probably at least half of our existing articles in this field were accepted when we had not yet realized the difficulties, and need to be re-examined.  As I said earlier, this problem is to some extent common to many industries, especially those dealing with immaterial objects. But the general hype in this particular field makes it perhaps the most difficult.
 * The criterion for passing ASfC is that there's a reasonable chance that the article will be accepted in mainspace by an AfD, and based upon recent decisions at AfD,I don't really see much chance here.  DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete incase it isn't already clear from my comments. Thee's really no chance of an article.  DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 7 November 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.