Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radix DLT


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  14:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Radix DLT

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Run-of-the-mill non-notable crypto project. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No claim to significance in the wider technological or financial community. Lack of WP:RS, the majority of sourcing is either blogspam or press releases. Principal contributor has only edited this article, and nothing else. Likely WP:PROMO, potentially in support of a pump-and-dump effort as cursory research indicates a recent promo push. Possibly undisclosed WP:PAID. Mel ma nn  11:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as it clearly has no claim to notability. OhHaiMark (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: Coverage in Finyear, Cryptonews and other non-RS sites are what I find, this is not a notable subject for wikipedia. Delete for lack of sourcing. What's used in the article is of the same quality... Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations,  and England.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The project has blog articles going back many years, and has had peer reviewed academic papers published, unlikely to be pump and dump with that history. 2A02:C7C:F118:D600:8CE:2581:B679:4325 (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Blog articles are really useless for notability as they have no editorial oversight. See Verifiability for more info. Could you show us some of the peer-reviewed academic sources covering the cryptocurrency? OhHaiMark (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is a Forbes article covering the company. Forbes is a reputable source. https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2019/01/09/this-hermitic-engineer-is-plotting-the-death-of-blockchain/ Marepy (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But that's only one source. We need three to make this article notable enough to stay. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, are you the IP who noted the blog articles. If so, you'll need to edit exclusively logged-in so people won't think you're socking. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sufficiently notable. I have seen so-called academic papers on the underlying algos written by Radix staffers. That does not count as an academic source, not least because it was not peer reviewed. MarcGarver (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Correction. The Cerberus Paper has been peer reviewed
 * Source: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6h427354#author 2A02:C7C:F118:D600:8CE:2581:B679:4325 (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2024 (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.