Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluidity (company)


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Fluidity (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable company that fails WP:NCORP MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - it was skimpy before, and I just removed the Forbes contributor blogs and crypto news sites - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See also: Articles for deletion/AirSwap (2nd nomination), which is Fluidity's product - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: A poorly-sourced article (a wedding notice?!). No evidence that this particular Fluidity company has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep More than 2 WP:RS listed. Capankajsmilyo(Talk 05:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which of these sources do you regard as sufficient for WP:NCORP? The 1st source is a sentence in an event report, quoting one of the company's principals. The second is a wedding notice mention of the company where someone works and doesn't support the text to which it is attached. The 3rd source is a passing mention of the firm as one of five in an "in addition to" list. This is a mix of routine and passing coverage. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am relisting merely because a claim of reliable sources is recent, and is recently disputed. I would judge consensus as "delete" unless consensus builds around reliable sources that are posited.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per AllyD ~ HAL  333  19:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage, much less enough to meet NCORP. There might be a place for company profiles of every little blockchain startup somewhere, but Wikipedia ain't it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per AllyD and Alpha3031. Dronebogus (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2020 (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.