Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INX (company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

INX (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

notability not established, "first registered token IPO" does not warrant notability. sources are not guaranteeing notability. A mention in Calcalist or Globes is expected for any token launching from israeli initiative. these are all run-of-the-mill PR pieces that you can find covering every single token out there, it should require more to assert notability. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Israeli media coverage of INX published in the major israeli economic media outlets and written by staff writers, it's not a PR-material. 2. Israel it the leading state for high-tech industry and companies per capita, the media is writing only about a small percentage of them. Tzahy (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:HighKing. I meant what I said. I'm not going to reference the article, just voice an opinion based on my research. I do often find more WP:ORGCRIT sources than others but do not have time to reference each and every article. For the current Israel queue that is two deletes and one keep. Best, gidonb (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, just trying to point out that your !vote will likely be discounted because saying "passes the GNG" is insufficient reason and especially when GNG isn't even the appropriate guideline and NCORP is hella stricter. HighKing++ 13:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is plainly incorrect. Several of the articles below are valid, independent articles, written by professional journalist in fine, national newspapers. Some closers fall for who is loudest but definitely not all. The subject meets WP:NCORP through WP:ORGCRIT. (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion would carry a lot more weight if there was some substance to your response. Very easy to provide a vague "Your analysis is plainly incorrect", much more difficult to show where my analysis is flawed. A statement that the subject meets NCORP through ORGCRIT is also rather vague especially as the basis of my objections were that nearly all of the articles specifically fail ORGIND. HighKing++ 13:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information, advertorials or announcements or interviews, etc. which seem to make up most of the references. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate sufficient references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
one (Fox News), two (propertyfundsworld), three (Finance Magnates), four (Crowd Fund Insider), five (Finance Magnates), six (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), seven (Globes), eight (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), nine (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), ten (Crowd Fund Insider), eleven (Calcalist), twelve (Finance Magnates), thirteen (Yahoo Finance), fourteen (Jerusalem Post), fifteen (Yahoo Finance), sixteen (Yahoo Finance), seventeen (Globes). Tzahy (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of copying the list of references from the article to here as if that's supposed to evidence the establishment of notability. Here's a breakdown of each one on those references in respect of NCORP - there are insufficient references that can be used to establish notability.
None of the above meet NCORP and I'm happy to discuss. If you've any other references you believe meet NCORP (it would be helpful if you'd check first though, so of the above were obvious fails) please post a link below. HighKing++ 13:17, 15 March 2021 (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.