Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HashCash Consultants

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 By far the majority of the coverage is not indepedent. One of the supports voted twice and a couple appear to be single purpose accounts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HashCash Consultants

HashCash Consultants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

notability not established for yet another blockchain company Ysangkok (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of HashCash Consultants is well-established. It is among top 2-3 companies in this space such as Ripple and ConsenSys. Please suggest objective ways if any of improving content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayan999 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top two according to what measure? This is just fluff, just like "HashCash has 100+ enterprises using its products". Unsourced advertising statements. This company has no significant news coverage. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are 30+ articles and news coverage of the company that I have come across (could spend more time on the references). Besides US media coverage is not world media coverage. You have to look outside of just coindesk and the names you are familiar with. This company is part of the International Organization for standards committee created to form blockchain standards globally. Regarding 100+ enterprises, I am assuming a company working with major banks wouldn't claim falsely on their website, but again that is my assumption. If no basis is found for this claim, it can be removed. Either way, this make the page candidate for improvement not deletion is my view. Sayan999 (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Article consists entirely of spammy "Product and Services" section. I requested such under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've contested the speedy delete. Cryptocurrencies are a very important topic and we currently have 43 articles in Category:Bitcoin companies. I don't see why this company is less suitable that the others. As I indicated on the articles talk page, the article has little puffery and many refs. If it is considered substandard, improvement tags are the more appropriate way to go.--agr (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- fails
  "many such articles exist" often results in deletion of other, similar articles as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete References provided for the article are PR releases and the same reference is quoted as multiple sources (Ref:-1 - 4), whereas the source is primary PR. Fails GNG and this new block chain company is
  WP:TOOSOON. Hagennos (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Found several independent mentions of the company, added 5 to references. The page looks ok compared to other existing pages on this topic. Don't see why it should be removed. The article do not seem to be using advertising language in my view.--Rc81 (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Rajc81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Upon checking the list of the 42 bitcoin companies in Category:Bitcoin companies, it was found that 8 out of 10 articles have fewer and possibly weaker references than this page (which has 22 references from different sources). If notability of this article had been pointed out as an issue, then 80% of the pages in this category are also candidates for deletion. The purpose of the Wiki guideline literature is to maintain a uniform standard across articles. Do not think deletion of this article will help that.--Sayan999 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Sayan999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• delete . The same press release is cited 4 times and other refs are also churnalism. This is promotional dreck and would have to be rewritten from scratch to be a WP article. WP is undergoing some severe promotioanal pressure from crytocurrency advocates. Not good - we need to be very vigilant with the bubble and hype and all. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The comments by Jytdog might need to be discounted because it expresses a general negativity towards blockchain and cryptocurrency companies unrelated to the page in question. "WP is undergoing some severe promotioanal pressure from crytocurrency advocates. Not good - we need to be very vigilant with the bubble and hype and all." We are not discussing cryptocurrency bubbles here. Sayan999 (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The accounts that are editing the AfD for Keep, Sayan999 and Rajc81 are suspected to have an undisclosed COI with the Company and has been flagged accordingly on their talk pages. Hagennos (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The accounts that are editing AfD Hagennos and Jytdog evidently belong to the same user. Sayan999 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG and do not shoot yourself in the foot. Hagennos (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hagennos, I would most politely suggest that instead of going after Wikipedia users, we keep the scope of the discussion to the article's quality, content and place in Wikipedia. It is matured and efficient to discuss through reasons and counter reasons. The quality of the debate will help in building consensus. The users you are steering the discussions to have added useful references to improve the article. Sayan999 (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.