Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blockworks

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 11:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blockworks

[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)

SPA-created article with no in-depth independent coverage. There are many mentions of the company, many when an employee is credited for saying something in about cryptocurrencies. There are recycled press releases and interviews with said employees. This article has been PROD'd (by me), moved to Draft (by another editor) but in both cases saved by the SPA. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and United States of America. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG's multiple independent RS with significant coverage:

Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/blockworks-launches-crytocurrency-news-site-2021-1

TheStreet: https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/innovation/something-that-looks-more-like-bloomberg-blockworks-founder-on-data-das

Fortune: https://fortune.com/crypto/2025/04/08/blockworks-yanowitz-crypto-data/

Axios: https://www.axios.com/2023/05/09/crypto-blockworks-raises-12m-135m-valuation Vgbyp (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like WP:PROMO couldn't find any strong secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nominator. MattBCN (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is covered by independent sources, as noted by Vgbyp. it would be better to retain the article rather than delete it. SolVesc (talk • contribs) 07:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need to address the reliability of the sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CORPDEPTH failure, the coverage cited above is a bunch of routine fundraising announcements and unreliable sources, nothing that would contribute to notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. As to the sources mentioned by Vgbyp above:

Business Insider article is based *entirely* on info/quotes/PR from the company, it has no "independent content", fails WP:ORGIND.
The Street article is based *entirely* on an interview with the founder and has no "independent content", fails ORGIND
Fortune article is also based *entirely* on regurgitating company PR spiel, has no in-depth "independent content" about the company, fails [[WP:CORPDEPTH}} and ORGIND
The Axios article largely reguritates a company announcement on a funding round and other information provided by the company/founders, fails ORDING and CORPDEPTH

I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:43, 19 October 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.