746:. However, in my review of the sources, I can't seem to find any evidence that this is the case. The articles all look like they're authored by different writers and I don't see any indication that they're not original articles. So, the fundamental reason being put forward doesn't quite even add up.
531:
article is obviously not a fluff piece, because it is in fact critical of Abra, highlighting consumer displeasure with the company's verification procedure. I think these additional sources resolve the "one okay source" question. However, even if they didn't exist, I would argue that this particular
409:
I also think the nominator's right about the churnalism thing: what is one to make of triumphalist articles like "Abra Just
Electrified Blockchain Entrepreneurs in NYC" (Observer). I have performed a Gnews search and aside from CNN, I don't see enough media penetration beyond bitcoin trade websites,
394:
has a pay-per-click business model for its online "contributors" that is quite different from its print. It's similar to
Examiner.com and I don't believe it is considered a reliable source, for notability purposes. The nominator is correct, in that case, and in correcting BD2412's statement on the
297:
Firstly, let's maintain a civil discussion. There is certainly nothing here to get angry over. Secondly, there is no need to make snide suggestions that I "look up" common
Knowledge principles. I helped create many of them. Thirdly, I will be the first to agree that there are many efforts to place
225:
are reliable sources, and it is rather startling that an article including those sources would be characterized as "churnalism". With respect to deletion, the questions to be addressed are whether the subject is a hoax (clearly it is not) and whether it is notable. Non-notable entities tend not to
226:
get reported on by multiple major news outlets. This proposal for deletion clearly does not arise from a genuine understanding of notability, but on the way that the article is written. Having been an administrator on
Knowledge for nearly twelve years, I know a content dispute when I see one.
161:
587:; run-of-the-mill tech startup, with "Bitcoin" attached to it, so it's able to get some press. The content is quite typical of such promo articles -- ref bombing & attempts to inherit notability from the
483:
385:
544:, even a straight-up blog post is a reliable source if the author is a professional in their field. I have gone through some of her work and found some compelling, and decidedly
155:
552:". My conclusion is that discounting the source out of hand would be no better than giving the source a pass out of hand, and on balance, irrespective of the venue, this
777:
347:
114:
463:
367:
742:
be considered reliable sources. The reason given is that the sources are republishing already-written material; therefore it can't be considered actual
386:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2015/10/22/american-express-invests-in-bitcoin-venture-abra-which-announces-u-s-philippines-launch/#7731092f5eec
121:
87:
82:
566:
449:
308:
258:
236:
91:
549:
501:
Well, so it's one okay source. You know that's not enough. The two
Bloomberg hits are passing mentions. My !vote remains the same.
519:
is a reliable source, and no one has called that into question here. I just added two additional sources to the article, one from
176:
143:
74:
17:
410:
and publications of questionable editorial independence, into bona fide independent and respected business publications.
298:
non-notable companies on
Knowledge; I have deleted hundreds of these. This just doesn't happen to be one of those cases.
557:
440:
299:
249:
227:
540:
as a whole does. The author of the piece, Laura Shin, appears to have a good track record as a neutral journalist. Per
506:
491:
471:
419:
400:
355:
137:
699:
809:
40:
133:
719:
334:
789:
768:
724:
690:
510:
495:
475:
423:
404:
376:
359:
338:
292:
204:
56:
502:
487:
467:
430:
415:
396:
351:
183:
805:
686:
372:
36:
53:
670:
169:
78:
710:
330:
669:
Nothing stands out about this company, and the coverage is PR driven and not sufficient to meet
435:
Isn't "aside from CNN" a pretty big "aside from"? Also, I noted above that I added links to two
149:
785:
603:
584:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
804:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
682:
289:
201:
763:
645:
599:
70:
62:
607:
541:
281:
781:
108:
326:
285:
197:
747:
277:
193:
734:- So, the argument for deletion is the claim that the reliable sources which
280:" before making such blanket statements, or do a search for "Forbes" on the
649:
611:
390:
271:
221:
284:". And while you're at it, look up the phrase "passing mentions". --
196:. PROD tag removed, citing some nonsense about "content disputes".
681:-- which is all routine coverage: funding, product launches, etc.
550:
Medical identity theft: How the health care industry is failing us
798:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
515:
I know that one okay source is not enough - but there are more.
646:"Former Netscape Director Launches Bitcoin Remittance App Abra"
267:
215:
702:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
484:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
192:
Yet another article on a non-notable start-up, propped up by
104:
100:
96:
439:
articles, which are also on par with CNN as a source.
168:
708:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
812:). No further edits should be made to this page.
778:list of California-related deletion discussions
244:Note: I have also just added references to two
536:article passes muster irrespective of whether
348:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
464:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
368:list of Business-related deletion discussions
182:
8:
776:Note: This debate has been included in the
482:Note: This debate has been included in the
462:Note: This debate has been included in the
366:Note: This debate has been included in the
346:Note: This debate has been included in the
775:
481:
461:
365:
345:
625:
7:
591:companies where the founders worked:
24:
598:Abra was founded in 2014 in the
329:'s explanation of notability.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
556:is a reliable source. Cheers!
276:. Perhaps you should look up "
1:
644:Rizzo, Pete (4 March 2015).
282:Reliable sources noticeboard
263:02:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
241:02:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
829:
790:02:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
602:by Bill Barhydt, a former
571:23:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
548:"churnalism" pieces like "
511:04:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
496:15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
476:15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
454:02:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
424:15:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
405:14:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
377:12:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
360:01:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
339:10:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
313:03:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
293:03:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
205:02:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
57:00:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
769:17:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
725:17:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
691:23:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
801:Please do not modify it.
673:. Sources are the usual
32:Please do not modify it.
610:and former director of
384:If we're referring to
274:are reliable sources
523:, and another from
738:to exist actually
248:articles. Cheers!
792:
760:
727:
604:software engineer
503:Shawn in Montreal
498:
488:Shawn in Montreal
478:
468:Shawn in Montreal
431:Shawn in Montreal
416:Shawn in Montreal
397:Shawn in Montreal
391:Forbes#Forbes.com
379:
362:
352:Shawn in Montreal
54:Black Kite (talk)
820:
803:
766:
761:
754:
722:
716:
707:
705:
703:
661:
660:
658:
656:
641:
635:
630:
564:
517:Business Insider
447:
434:
375:
306:
256:
234:
211:Keep and improve
187:
186:
172:
124:
112:
94:
34:
828:
827:
823:
822:
821:
819:
818:
817:
816:
810:deletion review
799:
764:
753:
748:
728:
720:
715:
711:
698:
696:
666:
665:
664:
654:
652:
643:
642:
638:
631:
627:
558:
441:
428:
371:
300:
250:
228:
129:
120:
85:
69:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
826:
824:
815:
814:
794:
793:
772:
771:
749:
713:
706:
695:
694:
693:
663:
662:
636:
624:
623:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
600:Silicon Valley
593:
592:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
479:
458:
457:
456:
455:
407:
381:
380:
363:
342:
341:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
190:
189:
126:
71:Abra (company)
65:
63:Abra (company)
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
825:
813:
811:
807:
802:
796:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
774:
773:
770:
767:
762:
759:
758:
752:
745:
741:
737:
733:
730:
729:
726:
723:
718:
717:
704:
701:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
667:
651:
647:
640:
637:
634:
629:
626:
622:
613:
609:
608:Goldman Sachs
605:
601:
597:
596:
595:
594:
590:
586:
582:
579:
578:
570:
569:
565:
563:
562:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
530:
526:
522:
521:CoinTelegraph
518:
514:
513:
512:
508:
504:
500:
499:
497:
493:
489:
485:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
460:
459:
453:
452:
448:
446:
445:
438:
432:
427:
426:
425:
421:
417:
413:
408:
406:
402:
398:
393:
392:
387:
383:
382:
378:
374:
373:North America
369:
364:
361:
357:
353:
349:
344:
343:
340:
336:
332:
331:Shhhnotsoloud
328:
324:
321:
312:
311:
307:
305:
304:
296:
295:
294:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
273:
269:
265:
264:
262:
261:
257:
255:
254:
247:
243:
242:
240:
239:
235:
233:
232:
224:
223:
218:
217:
212:
209:
208:
207:
206:
203:
199:
195:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
135:
132:
131:Find sources:
127:
123:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
800:
797:
756:
755:
750:
743:
739:
735:
731:
709:
697:
679:coindesk.com
678:
674:
671:WP:CORPDEPTH
653:. Retrieved
639:
632:
628:
620:
588:
580:
567:
560:
559:
553:
545:
537:
533:
528:
524:
520:
516:
450:
443:
442:
436:
411:
389:
325:. I accept
322:
309:
302:
301:
266:
259:
252:
251:
245:
237:
230:
229:
220:
214:
210:
191:
179:
173:
165:
158:
152:
146:
140:
130:
117:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
683:K.e.coffman
412:Weak delete
327:User:BD2412
156:free images
712:Rcsprinter
675:TechCrunch
633:TechCrunch
621:References
585:WP:TOOSOON
554:journalist
278:churnalism
194:Churnalism
806:talk page
782:• Gene93k
740:shouldn't
437:Bloomberg
414:per nom.
246:Bloomberg
37:talk page
808:or in a
744:coverage
721:(notify)
700:Relisted
655:11 March
650:CoinDesk
612:Netscape
395:matter.
115:View log
39:or in a
583:-- per
529:NewsBTC
525:NewsBTC
162:WP refs
150:scholar
88:protect
83:history
736:appear
581:Delete
561:bd2412
542:WP:UGC
538:Forbes
534:Forbes
527:. The
444:bd2412
303:bd2412
286:Calton
272:Forbes
253:bd2412
231:bd2412
222:Forbes
198:Calton
134:Google
92:delete
589:prior
177:JSTOR
138:books
122:Stats
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
786:talk
757:warm
732:Keep
687:talk
677:and
657:2017
606:for
507:talk
492:talk
472:talk
420:talk
401:talk
356:talk
335:talk
323:Keep
290:Talk
270:and
219:and
202:Talk
170:FENS
144:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
714:123
546:not
268:CNN
216:CNN
184:TWL
113:– (
52:.
788:)
780:.
689:)
648:.
509:)
494:)
486:.
474:)
466:.
422:)
403:)
388:,
370:.
358:)
350:.
337:)
288:|
213:.
200:|
164:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
784:(
765:♠
751:S
685:(
659:.
614:.
568:T
505:(
490:(
470:(
451:T
433::
429:@
418:(
399:(
354:(
333:(
310:T
260:T
238:T
188:)
180:·
174:·
166:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
136:(
128:(
125:)
118:·
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.