Talk:CryptoHarlem

Notability

DMySon, WP:THREE:

• Wired: "Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology." [1]
• Vice: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications." but vice.com is insource over 14,000 times.[2] and the article seems decent.[3]
• Consumer reports: Found no listing or discussion in RSN, but it is used nearly 600 times in wikipedia, FWIW.[4]. The article is extensive coverage.[5]

Plus,

• Newsweek source is from late 2021, nearly 2022: "so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." Seems OK.[6]
• Techcrunch: "Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability." It seems consistent with other coverage, therefore OK. [7]
• Sponsorship by Calyx Institute makes them not completely financially independent, but it is a positive endorsement by an "intellectually" independent organization AFAIK.

-- Yae4 (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Yae4: i can see you have submitted the draft for review and that is the best way to accept this article in main space. I am also agreed on your points. Let's have patience and let the other reviewers take a look at this draft. DMySon (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

DMySon, IMO two editors with numerous new articles experience in agreement is sufficient. WADR, it was a mistake to delay this article. There are no deadlines but you should move it back, IMO. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments moved from draft

• Comment: More than half of this article is devoted to covering the coverage. It may be a hedge against deletion but it is fluffy and promotional. JSFarman (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

JSFarman, Thanks for the comment. It is unfortunate if it comes off defensive, fluffy or promotional to you; that was not the intent. The intent was to provide some tidbits of info' from numerous sources to show it is a notable topic. After the powers that be deem the topic is notable enough to have an article, then the time and energy could be spent making it "better". Improvements would be welcomed. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yae4 (talk), I am a "powers that be" (LOL). I believe the subject is notable, but the way the article is written is based on establishing notability rather providing readers with information about the organization. I started an edit but I am out of time; please consider rewriting to document the history of CryptoHarlem and its impact via reliable, independent sources. JSFarman (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

JSFarman, Thanks for your edit and agreement on notability. I have moved it back to article space with improvement tag, and will see about improving info taken from the reliable, independent sources already in the article, as time allows. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Yae4. I removed the tag; I think the issues have been addressed (and I never intended my comment to appear as a tag)! I'll keep adding to the article, thanks for writing it. JSFarman (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

History of deletion

FWIW, Noting previous G11 deletion[8] in July 2021. I have no additional info' on that draft or article. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Deleted as unambiguous advertising/spam. JSFarman (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

It is the meaning of WP:G11. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

CryptoHarlem and Mr. Robot

This edit[9] deleted, among other things, the connection with Mr. Robot. The connection seems interesting to readers, so I am restoring it. There are a number of possible sources, for now re-using the Vice source, and adding the primary source seems like enough. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)