Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OneKey

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. ✗plicit 23:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OneKey

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brochure advertising article. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 16:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty much all of the sources are either primary ones or unreliable ones (such as Crunchbase, press releases from "Chainwire", user-generated reviews from "ScamAdvisor"). Virtually no coverage outside of press releases. Suffers from a severe case of reference bloat to try and make the topic seem notable. Likely can be speedy deleted per G11 ApexParagon (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable, another crypto brochure. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for consideration

Hey everyone,

So, I've gone ahead and done a content refresh on the OneKey article based on the feedback here. I've really tried to rewrite it with a more neutral, third-party kind of tone – definitely less like an ad.

I also took a good look at the source list, tidied that up, and cut out or rephrased a fair bit of the content to make sure it actually lines up with what the reliable sources are saying.

Hopefully, these changes help sort out the main worries about it being notable enough (WP:NCORP) and the way it was written before. Would be great if you could take another look when you get a chance.

Thanks! Archie627 (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement (thank you for reducing it from 100+ refs to 16), but I’m still not sure if it’ll be enough to meet NCORP due to the lack of reliable secondary source coverage.

The Decrypt source is a press release, the ChainCatcher source got all of its information from what appears to be a OneKey employee’s Medium blog, and BitDegree seems questionable in editorial standards. The Block could be an RS though, I’ll look into that. The rest of the sources are the company’s own website so they don’t count towards notability. ApexParagon (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not satisfy criteria described in NCORP that would indicate this is subject is worthy of a standalone article on Wikipedia. Sources are press releases and unreliable sources. It may be TOO SOON for this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most of the links and external media I was able to find don't pass reliability criteria and are just unreliable. That means the subject is not notable and fails NCORP. --Amlikdi (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2025 (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.