Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Ledger (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. This is an extremely messy discussion, but on the balance there is consensus for deletion. As those arguing to delete correctly point out, NCORP requires not only significant coverage in reliable sources, but significant intellectually independent coverage in reliable sources. While many sources were provided in this discussion, those sources were convincingly rebutted. Some "keep" !votes were also particularly weak, as they did not address the subject's notability directly, and as such received less weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Power Ledger

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

Power Ledger (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)

No evidence of notability under WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Claims are sourced to self-sources, one "startup news" source repeating promotional claims, one actual RS talking about the company and its activities. Previous sourcing included extensive cites to cryptocurrency sites, which are not usable for claims of notability, and press-release churnalism about things the company claimed it was going to do. WP:BEFORE shows almost entirely such promotional churnalism about things that had not happened and that there's no evidence ever did happen. Extensive filbustering of the previous AFD led to a "no consensus" result; I'm pretty sure nothing of substance has shown up in the years since. David Gerard (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've collapsed the details so as to avoid the appearance of filibustering this nomination as well. Those three news articles are about PowerLedger as a failed scam - but the first and the last two are failed WP:CRYSTAL - they just repeat aspirations claimed by the company (aspirations that failed), rather than being sources of factual claims about the company, I believe you brought these up last time as well, and nobody was impressed by the books' clear churnalistic nature. Being on Google Books does not make a failed WP:CRYSTAL claim a reliable source for a claim of notability. To your credit, at least this time you didn't also include the book chapter that was co-written by a guy from PowerLedger, and which you claimed then was an independent reliable source for notability - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard I appreciate you checking his sources. This is something he has repeatedly done and denies having a problem with. Even after I opened a complaint at ANI about it and an admin told him on his talk page to make sure his sources were reliable before he posts them. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The filibustering walls of text got to be such a problem on previous AFDs that community remedies were considered, until he undertook not to do it again (and then did it again here) - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis of the sources:

    Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage says, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." I will show that the sources have provided "deep coverage" of the company.

    The chapter written by Yin Cao in book the Woodhead Publishing book discusses Power Ledger in four paragraphs (388 words in total). It contains critical analysis of Power Ledger. It says "Regulatory pressure and funding will be the main challenges for the future of Power Ledger" and says "Power Ledger has a fatal defect, which is the token it requires, named POWR".

    The Australian Financial Review (AFR) has published several critical articles about Power Ledger. The articles have so angered Power Ledger's leadership that the AFR noted in August 2019, "Power Ledger is suing the Financial Review in the West Australian Supreme Court over articles published in December [2018] that raised questions about how the company raised $34 million for its blockchain tokens, and the effectiveness of its electricity-trading system."

    A December 2018 AFR article said about Power Ledger, "Articles exaggerated Power Ledger's achievements. The company was often described as operating a retail electricity market, and sounded liked an eBay or Amazon for solar power. In reality, it was building the technology and didn't have a commercial market operating. Twitter was flooded with posts. Some claimed Musk had asked the company for advice. Fake accounts were rewarded with POWR tokens for their promotional work."

    A peer-reviewed conference paper published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers provides about 250 words of coverage and analysis about Power Ledger. A Nicholas Brealey Publishing book provides about 1.5 pages of coverage about Power Ledger. There is enough coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.

    Cunard (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too early for wiki notable. Blockchain companies are in 10000+ and they paid handsomely to some writers who can make good articles in digital channels of notable media. Wiki is not a directory for these companies. Above references are ridiculously posted without even analysing what is even written there, just usual copy-paste job and even wasting time of community to even find the meaningful content on those references. Major media digital channels are driven by several freelance writers which can not be considered as the source of genuine coverage by media. they work on project for paid writing and companies use them to write such articles. how 250-500 words are in-depth coverage of a company? just FYI Writer in the Guardian. "Max Opray is an Adelaide-based freelance journalist". Light2021 (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Note to closer, this contribution is from an individual violating their topic ban, subsequently indeff'd added by PainProf (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I consider the AFR reliable, given its broad coverage there I would have been surprised if it didn't have wider coverage in the Australian press. I found multiple RS. All of these organisations are known for fact checking and independent journalism.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/blockchain-technology-fuels-peer-to-peer-energy-trading-start-up/9035616 https://www.smh.com.au/business/energy-startup-carries-out-australias-first-cryptocurrency-raising-20171004-gyu14p.html https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/13/could-a-blockchain-based-electricity-network-change-the-energy-market https://www.austrade.gov.au/news/success-stories/power-ledger-delivers-first-of-its-kind-renewable-energy-project-in-south-east-asia https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_MRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fbusiness%2Ftechnology%2Fpower-ledger-expands-footprint-in-japan%2Fnews-story%2F5834b78e10b654a8f1c94a313d0a3fff&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&nk=ffe5225d1c1f5ff1dd5fd55a38c31ded-1595851365 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-08/trading-solar-power:-retirees-plan-for-the-future/7914736 PainProf (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete These block chain companies and routine articles about them are a dime a dozen. All the sources provided in this AfD about the company seem to be extremely trivial or otherwise not usable for notability. For instance a 250 word "article" isn't in-depth coverage and the freelance guest writer in the Guardian article isn't a reliable source. Neither is the Australian Governments website. While an article about them raising initial funds for their cryptocurrency is trivial coverage according to WP:NCORP and could apply to the beginnings of most cryptocurrencies. People invest in them. That's how they work. Also, according to the consensus in a discussion on RSN, conference papers aren't generally reliably. So, I see nothing notable here, couldn't apply to every other cryptocurrency startup or that passes WP:NCORP in any fashion. Nothing about any of that is surprising though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. Block-chain companies are extremely common. The sources cited seem to be routine business news coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Undecided: Some sources apart from the one's mentioned above. The Economic Times [1], The Hindu [2], TechCrunch [3], ZDNet [4], Yahoo [5], [6]. The nominator argues in the previous comment that three news articles are about PowerLedger as a failed scam. So what? Please include this vital info in the article. How does that justify deletion? Also, @Bearian:, what is routine business news coverage in your view? There are some examples below WP:CORPDEPTH, and I can't relate these to those examples. The news coverage I see isn't "routine business news" because these news sources aren't articles about some stock price fluctuations, annual reports, corporate events. - hako9 (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hako9: That Hindu piece is parroting the same old blockchain hype that caused people to believe it would take over the world:

Another benefit came from tokenised funds that were released upon meeting pre-specified conditions, such as optimising a battery for the highest value activity without any manual handling required, reducing transactional friction and providing a faster settlement process.

What is the advantage here? They make it sound like the blockchain understands what "highest value activity of a battery" is, when it is unclear what that means, and that blockchains cannot do so because they only encode decentralized properties (like PoW) into their consensus rules. In short: no such thing is possible to automatize (the claim of the paragraph). More likely, semi-automated APIs separate of the blockchain are triggering conditions that cause the transaction to happen. How is this any different from the triggering of a contractual clause outside of a blockchain application? How can you trust a source that lists a "benefit", without actually explaining what the benefit is? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to be right... and the idea doesn't have to be a good one, a lot of the sources here suggest a controversy about whether they are a good idea particularly the AFR ones. To be clear, there is a lot of hype about blockchain, doesn't however mean that it isn't notable. Some of these Australian outlets are very obviously highly reliable and significant (for instance the several sources in the ABC, the numerous articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian and the Australian Financial Review. IMO The ABC doesn't really cover MILL like news, and here that is evidence by the fact they physically sent journalists to cover it in person and perform interviews with customers etc which isn't typical for routine press releases or announcements. PainProf (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Yahoo piece is a reprint from bottom-of-the-barrel bitcoin blog CoinRivet. The others are churnalism, repeating the company's aspirational claims - David Gerard (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing. What one may define as churnalism is subjective. Unless you have sources which are denied to me and likely everyone else, I assume you can't prove these stories were pre-packed and given as is, to the hindu, ABC, ET, AFR etc. and they failed to have any journalistic oversight. Wishing these sources (The Hindu, ET, AFR, Guardian, ABC are clearly reliable sources) raise their editorial standards and exclude puffery is not an argument for deletion. To me it is very clear. Either raise the notability bar in our notability policies to expressly exclude companies like these and BLPs of instagram models/youtubers who somehow pass notability because they happen to have reliable sources, (which I'd like) or maintain status quo. - hako9 (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP specifically covers this variety of nonsense in WP:ORGIND, so no, it isn't just my personal feelings versus yours - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can you tell me how did you conclude that none of the sources are independent? The ET article is credited to Anshul Joshi (not a non-staff writer). Similarly, the Hindu article - John Xavier, Techcrunch article - Mike Butcher, ABC article - Kathryn Diss, Guardian article - Max Opray. All independent journalists working for their respective outlets. How does independence of author and independence of content fail for all these and others mentioned? - hako9 (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: After claiming that the subject fails ORGIND, the nominator has failed to justify that claim to my above reply. - hako9 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Note to closing adminHako9 asks for an explanation that none of the sources are independent and points out how the organizations and journalists have no connection with the company. That's half the argument. The other half is whether the *content* is independent. ORGIND states 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.. The Economic Times reference (dated Aug 16th) is entirely based on this announcement dated Aug 12th by the company and was reported in other media also (usually a good hint that something is based on an announcement is when multiple agencies report the same "announcement" as news). So this fails ORGIND. The Hindu reference is based on "a report by the RENeW Nexus project team" and it includes at the very end of the short article a quote from "report co-author and Power Ledger Chairman Dr Jemma Green". Not independent, fails ORGIND. The TechCrunch article is also entirely based on this company announcement and was also reported in other publications, most of which acknowledged their article was based on the announcement (unlike the TechCrunch author but hey, who's surprised, its TechCrunch after all?). The original announcement can be found here on archive.org. Please also note the exact same quote in both articles. This also fails ORGIND. This ZDNet reference is based on an appearance of the company's executive chairman in fron of the Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology. All of the information relating to Power Ledger is attributable to the company executive. No Independent Content, fails ORGIND. Both Yahoo references are based entirely on information provided by the company. The first even has a headline which states "Power Ledger’s Blockchain P2P Energy Trial ‘Technically Feasible,’ It Says in New Report". This isn't rocket science, clearly it isn't "Independent Content" if the company wrote the report. Fails ORGIND. It's a bit more difficult to spot in the second Yahoo article as you actually have to read the first sentence which contains "Australian blockchain energy company Power Ledger has published the findings of a trial". Not Independent Content. Fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 15:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Changing my !vote to undecided. This article from ET [7] had independent analysis that I presumed was original. But after some digging I found this article [8] which contains large parts in common. This PR [9] that HighKing links above is totally different. Maybe a mistake, but atleast I found my own error. Coming to The Hindu's article HighKing says it should be completely disregarded since it contains a quote at the end by Power Ledger Chairman Dr Jemma Green. We can't disregard the whole article just because it contains one quote or even several from its management, in my opinion. This TechCrunch article [10] and this PR they wrote on medium [11] is not the same, except the last two paras which are. HighKing says, the ZDNet article [12] is entirely attributable to the company executive. I don't find this as true. Although, significant portions are quotes by the co executives but it still has some independent content. The Yahoo articles are BS. I concede. I added them knowing they were re-publications of coin desk and coin rivet. But coindesk is considered generally unreliable/to be avoided per WP:RSP, which I did not know. Overall, I think, after excluding all direct quotations and plagiarism that Indian media is rightly critiqued for, my argument doesn't hold. The journalists like Anshul Joshi from ET should really be ashamed of themselves. - hako9 (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Final) I no longer feel confident about voting either side, so I abstain. I still feel that sources provided by PainProf and Cunard (several, if not all) need a better look. - hako9 (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep other than it having seemingly sufficient sources, this will (maybe) be one of these interesting historical events where blockchain would solve everthing, and then eventually it fades into oblivion. If we delete the article, it will never get created again (as the promoters will be all long gone and moved on to their next scam). Let's keep this for a possibility of future historical relevance. It was once worth $500M and now is nearly gone. I guess there are other cases of this, but I am guessing at wikipedia we will be left with less than a handful 10 years from now, good coffee table reading and adds to breath of wikipedia content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: you seem to suggest that articles will only get written by "promoters". This is no way to write an encyclopedia. We shouldn't have to rely on "promoters", and we don't. Futhermore, you are considering the "market cap" too much. A "market cap" of $500M doesn't mean that there are sufficient buyers for such an amount, it is simply the last executed price times the total amount. There is no Wikipedia guideline saying that a market cap of X means notability. Wikipedia is also not a consumer magazine, saying that something should have an article because "it could eventually warn someone", is misguided and based on the another assumption of Wikipedias role that there is no guideline on. You're assuming consensus for things that there is no established consensus for. --Ysangkok (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point was sometimes an amazing fall from grace is interesting and encyclopedic. Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, OJ Simpson, etc became more notable in their fall from grace rather than any fame they might have attained. You tend to bludgeon any vote that opposes your nomination, I have seen it repeatedly here at AfD, it isnt necessary. My point is the article's subject is ICO trash, and sometimes trash can be notable at wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --BayaniMillsτ 08:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Much dismissal about this blockchain company are not considering this specific company's attributes, but rather arguing that it should not be included because of the populous nature of blockchain companies. This seems to be rather irrelevent.
    2. Some dismissal in this deletion discussion refers to claimed acts that Power Ledger would perform; it seems now that the article has now been updated to more accurately include actual trials, projects, agreements, and products and services that are actively in use.
@BayaniMills: Regarding your point 1: We are considering the sources considering the agreed-upon guidelines mentioned in the deletion nomination. What do you imagine when you say "specific company's attributes"? That is so vague, I don't even know what it is supposed to mean. You're hinting that those attributes are so important, but you're not even mentioning what they actually are. Consensus has been established that many cryptocurrency sources are dubious. So it is not controversial that many of these sources are dismissed.
Regarding your point 2: The accuracy of the article is not the main concern, the main concern of the nominator is the notability of the subject. That the article previously contained less accurate information about "trails, projects, agreements, products and services," does not mean that the subject is notable now that those inaccuracies have been removed. --Ysangkok (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Forget about whether it was published in a "reliable source" or whether in your opinion it is "significant coverage". That's not the complete picture of what is required. There must also be "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 in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete- I checked the sources and agree with HighKing and Barkeep. This does not reach NCORP. Reyk YO! 05:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep, but there is a stark disconnect between the characterization of this company in this discussion and the article itself. It is mentioned in the discussion that "Power Ledger is suing the Financial Review in the West Australian Supreme Court"; where is this in the article? The company is discussed here as "a failed scam" and it is said that "an amazing fall from grace is interesting and encyclopedic", but these perspectives are barely noticeable in the article. I agree that remarkable failures are as notable as remarkable successes, and would keep this article if this content was clearly included. BD2412 T 05:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete- As of now, I don't think the sources justify NCORP, and I don't like the precedent of keeping articles because they might be notable someday. If the company becomes notable in the future- then it will be worthy of an article, but not yet. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:23, 25 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Power_Ledger_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1254360614"