Deletion of Bitnation (2nd nomination)

Comment: The article is definitely written like an advertisement, selectively stating opinions as fact (and I have accordingly added an {{tl|advert}} tag) but that lack of |neutrality can be—and should have been—fixed without even considering deletion. POV is rarely a reason to delete. Even the section  within  states that "If a subject is |notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with |neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." All that would be needed would be some objectivity about which of the project's claims are accepted by whom, and more discrimination in the use of sources (favoring the independent ones). The article on the Principality of Sealand could serve as a model; the present article's last two sections (Bitnation#Reception|Reception and Bitnation#Controversies|Controversies) are steps in the right direction. The nominator's claims that the article "probably fails  and " and "may be some internet hype storm/hoax" will not withstand a look through the sources, especially those for the last two sections
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:G11||WP:SPEEDY||WP:N||WP:NPOV||WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Fails  miserably as entirely promotional. Not only that but none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/11/opinions/isis-iraq-syria-global-passport/ The CNN reference is a mention-in-passing and fails . There's been one or two stating that http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/24/the-crypto-libertarians-using-technology-to-undermine-the-nation/ the Telegraph article meets the criteria for establishing notability but since the facts and details are from the founder with no independent opinions expressed, it is not intellectually independent and also fails . https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2016/04/03/ethereum-towards-a-new-bitsociety/#30a5cc8a3adc The Forbes article (like just about all the Forbes articles I've examined) fails also as it merely repeats what BitNation says about itself and fails  and is not intellectually independent. Cunard's mini-novel contains the usual overly-long and excessive quotations which often resemble the results of searching for the search term in "reliable sources" with no thorough examination of whether the reference itself is intellectually independent or otherwise meets the criteria for establishing notability. Although it is a total mish-mash, occasionally Cunard turns up some gems which are good references. So for the sake of completeness.... the first reference from a book by Jamie Bartlett is clearly an interview with the founder and therefore fails as a PRIMARY source, not intellectually independent, and fails both  and . The next reference is a Vice article and once again contains extensive quotations from the founder and from an "ambassador" ... but I believe it meets the criteria for establishing notability as it also provides opinions from unconnected and intellectually independent sources such as Dr. Jennifer Jackson-Preece from LSE and includes the journalist's own opinion.https://panampost.com/belen-marty/2014/10/17/bitnation-founder-on-a-mission-for-stateless-governance/ The PanAmPost reference fails since it relies almost exclusively on an interview with the founder and fails  and/or . http://www.dw.com/en/bitnation-the-virtual-country/a-19116934 The final reference from dw.com fails as it is an interview from another "ambassador" and is therefore a PRIMARY source and fails  and . A common misunderstanding of the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources that are Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent of the subject" is that it is the *source* which must be independent but this is incorrect. It is the reference itself which must be independent. Clearly, an "independent source" can publish a company announcement word-for-word and still remain an independent source but the reference would not be independent. Many of the examples provided appear to fall foul of this misunderstanding. In summary, the criteria for establishing notability has not beet met
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPIP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: despite having 41 references and puffery about being a nation-state, this is merely buzzword-fueled hype for what is effectively a web forum. I'm not certain it doesn't meet , but the entire article would be re-written from scratch
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)