Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitnation (2nd nomination)
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
— NONE, NONE
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NPOV||WP:G11||WP:SPEEDY||WP:N||WP:NPOV||WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)