Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EveriToken

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. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EveriToken

[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)

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. Completely generic reference, some name drops, some bios of non-notable people. scope_creep^Talk 23:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like this to be considered bundled with Token-Based Bookkeeping Method, which is presently a redirect to this article Bri.public (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Doesn't have its own article and what coverage is available is fairly small. Its is used in everiToken and the main paper that advanced it Analysis of Blockchain System With Token-Based Bookkeeping Method is co-written by 'everiToken Lab'. Worth bundling. scope_creep^Talk 22:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable blockchain currency as pointed out in the nom. We know that the mere presence of these articles on Wikipedia can serve promotional purposes and otherwise attract attention such the community put it under general sanctions. If Token-Based Bookeeping Method can stand on its own, and admittedly I haven't done any looking beyond what scope creep posted but that paper doesn't seem like the kind that can spur notability on its own merits, fine but let someone make that article and have editors of that decide whether this merits mention or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2019 (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.