Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SWFT Blockchain

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SWFT Blockchain

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

Non notable Blockchain, no coverage and most of the sources make no mention of SWFT. Also highly promotional. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom (speedily IMO). SmartSE (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, nto enough indepth coverage from non-cryptoblogs. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourced to cryptoblogs Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was rewritten to strike a more neutral tone. Third parties legitimate sources are cited in every section. The page, therefore, does not qualify for deletion. AlexLWitt_(smalltalk) 18:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the writer of the article, I used the feedback from this discussion to rewrite the page. I included one reliable source (e.g., the company's white paper, and a Harvard Business Review article on the truth about Blockchain) in every section to inform readers and keep the content relevant. I even excluded the "Cryptocurrencies Listed" section to eliminate the "promotional" tone that the comments above complained about. The article is in accordance to Wikipedia's principles and should not be deleted. Victoria cpg_(smalltalk) 18:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see significant coverage. While Victoria's above effort is admirable, I'm not sure it's been entirely successful. Wrt the reliability, I'm not sure Victoria cpg has seen the general notability guideline. For inclusion of an article, we require secondary sources independent of the subject. The white paper is neither. I don't think that GNG is satisfied here. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:51, 25 April 2018 (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.