Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banking on Bitcoin

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. Consensus is that there is substantial coverage in one acceptable source, GQ. But almost everybody who has taken a closer look at the other sources is of the view that they are the sort of crypto subculture materials that we don't consider reliable. Sandstein 15:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banking on Bitcoin[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence of notability per WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Single RS talking about the film, after the non-RSes were cleaned out - NFILM requires multiple coverage. WP:BEFORE shows nothing more. PROD removed, but without any fixes to these issues. David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been covered in GQ, which is a reliable source. Also, isn't NASDAQ reliable? [1] --Ysangkok (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- GQ is a single RS, and WP:NFILM requires multiple coverage. The NASDAQ source is a reprint of Bitcoin Magazine, which is a crypto blog. You also added a pile more links to said crypto blog. These are not RSes and cannot be used to demonstrate notability - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some information from other reliable independent sources including Cointelegraph, Bitcoin.com (Saint Bitts LLC) and Bitcoin Magazine. These are sources that are not related to the film producer and may be presumed to give accurate information and reviews, not all of which are positive. The film, now a bit dated, gained considerable attention in the bitcoin community and some attention outside that community. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: David Gerard thinks one cannot cite Bitcoin Magazine. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bitcoin_Magazine_reputable. --Ysangkok (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok: Bitcoin Magazine has a sizable readership, and I see no reason to doubt what it says about this film. When Nasdaq republishes the Bitcoin Magazine review, that means they think the film is notable and Bitcoin Magazine is a credible source for a review. Whether Bitcoin Magazine or Nasdaq would be good sources for investment advice is a different question. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: it would be better to discuss that at the noticeboard since it concerns all the Bitcoin articles. There are a few other AfD's underway. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the crypto blogs. This is WP:REFBOMBing, not adding reliable sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored valid sources and the content they support. The crypto-currency news sites are reliable for information about the movie. You may argue here why you consider Nasdaq etc. unreliable. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more information supported by reliable sources. This information, and the citations, should not be removed during a deletion discussion. It is valid to comment here on whether the sources are reliable and whether they contribute to notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what is going on here. I came to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Flawed. Banking on Bitcoin is an article proposed for deletion by David Gerard, kept, and then nominated for AfD by the same user. A typical pattern. It seems like a harmless documentary, perhaps a bit biased, as documentaries tend to be. A Google search gives plenty of hits, so it seems notable enough.

I added some neutral and factual content about the film from sources that discussed the subject, and it was reverted by David Gerard with the summary "rm crypto sites - crypto sites are not WP:RSes, need mainstream sources". That seems a bit like saying Christian sources cannot be used in articles about Christianity. I restored the content and added some more from sources that seem to be far from "crypto sites". I then get a large warning box on my talk page from David Gerard saying something about WP:General sanctions, and shortly after Retimuko removed all the changes I had made.

What is going on? I have no views on bitcoin beyond vague skepticism. I am not trying to push any opinion, just trying to salvage a bland article about a Netflix film that has received some attention, rightly or wrongly. Why do we urgently need to purge the article on the film? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, Cointelegraph, bitcoin.com, Nasdaq (reprint from Bitcoin Magazine) are not considered reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Retimuko: To be clear, if I restore all the content I added apart from the citations to these three sources, you will not again purge it all? David Gerard seems in his/her unsigned notice on my talk page to be saying one false step and I am in deep shit. I do not want get get into anything resembling an edit war. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this make half of the claims unsupported? Besides, I am not familiar with other sources. Is imdb considered reliable? What about thatshelf.com, gritdaily.com and infolaft.com? Simply speaking, yes, I wouldn't object if Cointelegraph, Bitcoin Magazine and bitcoin.com are excluded together with claims they were supposed to support. Retimuko (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have put back the material other than the stuff from Cointelegraph, Bitcoin Magazine and bitcoin.com. This all seems very paranoid to me, but I suppose that is what the world of cryptocurrencies is like. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when I go to save an article I get warning notice like:

Error: Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.

To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save.
- Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. goo.gl, t.co, youtu.be, bit.ly), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded.
- Links containing google.com/url? are resulting from a copy/paste from the result page of a Google search - please follow the link on the result page, and copy/paste the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded, or click here to convert the link.
If you feel the link is needed, you can:
- Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you).
- Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page.

Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. The following link has triggered a protection filter: census2011.co.in
Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.

Solutions:

If the url used is a url shortener/redirect, please use the full url in its place, for example, use youtube.com rather than youtu.be,
If the url is a google url, please look to use the (full) original source, not the google shortcut or its alternative.
Look to find an alternative url that is considered authoritative.

I suggest that Cointelegraph, bitcoin.com and Nasdaq should be added to Wikipedia:Spam blacklist to avoid problems like this in the future. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:GNG still not met. The recently added sources are all crypto-currency news sites; not necessarily unreliable, but probably no better than trade magazines for notability (the WP:RSN discussion above is a good discussion of this; I think we're still trying to build consensus around this). The single remaining GQ article is not sufficient. BenKuykendall (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the sources:

IMDB (Amazon) and Barnes and Noble are reliable for basic facts like people and companies associated with the film, but do nothing to establish notability
Ben Prunty's bio is probably accurate in saying he composed the music, but does nothing to establish notability
Grit Daily, GQ and That Shelf are large sites (GQ also has a print version) with many readers. The articles are written by paid journalists. They may be assumed to be factually accurate, although the opinions expressed will be those of the authors. They clearly establish notability
Lozano Vila & Asociados is a large legal consultancy based in Colombia that specializes in prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing. Its lengthy overview of the film may be taken to indicate that the film presents a legitimate mainstream view of the subject, if that is relevant.
Nasdaq republished a review of the film by Bitcoin Magazine, which also indicates both legitimacy and notability, but the nominator has insisted this source be removed.

Aymatth2 (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aymatth, looks to have sufficient enough coverage to be worth keeping, regardless of what we might think about the subject matter.† Encyclopædius 12:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Thanks Aymatth2. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BenKuykendall. Cryptocurrency, being an area rife with promotionalism, is a subject where niche sources have a deep well to climb out of in order to prove themselves reliable. Churning an unreliable source does not make its content more trustworthy, so the NASDAQ/Bitcoin Magazine item counts for nothing; the closest we get is the single piece from GQ, which isn't enough. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: what about the three other sources listed by Kvng? None of them are crypto media. --Ysangkok (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other areas "rife with promotionalism" include politics, the performing arts, software and so on. Let's not get paranoid. The main sources are reviews of the film published in broad-audience journals. They are reliable and independent: that is what they saw, and that is what they thought about it. The film itself may be biased – many films, books, politicians etc. are biased – but what counts is whether it has been noted, and that is clearly true. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the documentary is covered and reviewed by the multiple notable sources [6], [7], [8] and [9]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The GQ source is good, but otherwise the sources people are linking to to support keeping are really dodgy. "Grit Daily" calls itself the "top news source on Millennial and Gen Z brands". Other sources are from Bitcoin Magazine and other bitcoin-related sources rather than sources known for their coverage of film. For a recent movie on Netflix about a topic in pop culture, there's a surprising lack of good coverage here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Magazine is not cited, or any other bitcoin-related sources, because of the ruling that all sources that cover bitcoin-related topics are unreliable. That limits the available sources for a film about bitcoin. GQ, Grit Daily and That Shelf are independent and surely reliable for what they say about the film. Lozano Vila & Asociados, a law firm, is surely also reliable and independent. All these sources cover the film in depth, which is all that WP:GNG requires. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Magazine and other bitcoin-related sources are in fact linked above as evidence that the article should be kept (the source published on nasdaq.com says "publisher: Bitcoin Magazine"). I see no indication that Grit Daily is a reliable source for a film review here. Ditto the law firm. Independent is not the same as reliable for a particular purpose, of course. Would need to look into That Shelf more, since I've never heard of it and it's unclear by looking at it, but jsut GQ + That Shelf doesn't speak highly for a film. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't like it" is a weak argument. We have identified seven professionally-written reviews of the film published by sources that cover crypto-currency, finance in general, technology and modern culture. There are not short publicity blurbs. They are detailed descriptions and thoughtful, informed critiques from different perspectives. The depth and breadth of coverage is impressive. The film is notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No we haven't, they're bad sources that can't be used for notability - even if you keep just repeating your claim at everyone who points this out. We have two review sources at absolute best - David Gerard (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Infolaft (Lozano Consultores Ltda) is the most significant source. They specialize in prevention and control of money laundering and terrorist financing. It is their business to understand in detail the crypto-currency technology, legal issues and ways in which bitcoin etc. can be used for illegal purposes. They are subject matter experts. GQ is a glossy that dates back to 1931, Grit Daily can explain the significance of the film to millenials, and That Shelf can comment on its artistic quality, but Infolaft gives a truly informed view of the views expressed in the documentary, the errors, omissions or distortions. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM since it only has one significant reliable source, the GQ article. The article is fluffed up with links to IMDB (which is not a reliable source) and a Barnes & Noble advertisement, neither of which do anything to prove notability, in an attempt to seem notable. One significant source is not sustained WP:SIGCOV, and articles on topics so financially focused should require a high bar to meet notability, to prevent Wikipedia being abused as free advertising. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The GQ is a certainly good coverage. If there was an equivalent review in another equivalent periodical that would demonstrate notability for me. I do notice some routine coverage in Deadline e.g. [10]. Beyond that I find a whole lot of references to it in good enough sources: in this listicle at the Telegraph on the best business content on Netflix, or this Chicago tribune column or as a throw away line in this CNBC article, or as a good primer in this the Street article. I could give more like that. None of them add up to a good enough second source for me to show notability. But my collective reading of them gives me great pause about deleting it. So I can't quite say we should keep up but I also can't say in good faith we should delete it. So take this as my own personal no consensus about what we should do here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2020 (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.