Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coinfirm


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Coinfirm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. A lot of incredibly low-quality blockchain references; many appear to be re-published press releases. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT. --Pontificalibus 08:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I am a researcher, I am quoting it again. And I will keep contributing to Wikipedia. Even in future, If I'll find any company, phenomena, discovery or anything worth adding I will. And being a more mature contributor, I expect some guidance and cherishing attitude from you. I hope you wouldn't mind helping me. But putting up articles for deletion log (Only by looking at references) without actually doing any research, I wonder how you will help others. While all I am trying to do is, to enhance the pool of notable articles on Wikipedia. LolaHowells (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - As I have mention earlier that I am a students and a researcher. I dig into the things before acting upon. So if you even google the name "Coinfirm" you will find a ton of links (Excluding press releases) going from page 1 of the search engine and not ending at all. Since I am aware of COI I just tried to be cautious about citations as Wikipedia is an open forum where anyone can contribute. I invite you to do a thorough research on the firm and add citations you feel are worth adding and volunteer in improving it. Since it was my first time, creating a page, I probably messed up with the citation cuz of (saying it again) the COI thing. But I am pretty much clear about firm's notability. It seems, its active and people are actually interested in their AMLT token.


 * Delete Looking at the sources in the article and not seeing any decent ones. Reuters piece comes with a note at the end: "This content was produced independently of Reuters Editorial News. It was created by VCNewsNetwork and was distributed by Reuters Solutions, in partnership with the Commercial Advertising Department for Reuters.com". The TechCrunch piece looks like a press release. The rest are very low-quality unacceptable sources. Retimuko (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - can't find any reliable sources here. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 12:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.