Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidus Bond


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Solidus Bond

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable financial instrument. Sources used in entry are primary, SPS and/or foreign language reprints of PR. Pegnawl (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is not a synonym for popularity among millennials. Seems Pegnawl wants a blockchain financial product to be as "notable" as the latest iphone...The Solidus Bond is unique, first of its kind, patented and vetted by third party sources who have qualifications in the subject matter. Article sources are not "primary" even if primary sources are used that reproduce non-primary source material.  The Chinese dont translate American PR releases and translations cant be done by machine.  The assertion that these are "foreign language reprints" is fake news.  Solidus Bond is cited in academic papers.  Pegnawl nominated Solidus Bond for deletion literally 18 hours (!) after I made the improvements he asked for 3 months ago...  There seems to be an agenda at work here. Had I not made the improvements yesterday, he would not have nominated the article for deletion today.  Something is not right about the deletion process here.  I have also recently seen advertisements for people to get paid to vote for deletion of articles. ..this process is corrupt and something needs to change.  Interfacts (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC) — Interfacts (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I have terminated this user's editing privileges under WP:GS/Crypto. MER-C 20:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Objections are not policy-based - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep  The topic is notable as per its subject matter.  Finance and debt are not popular topics and it is not fair to demand news the same level of news coverage one would expect of more mundane topics.  And silencing the author is really quit unfair.  Please reconsider your actions.Keerti.kasat (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC) — Keerti.kasat (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Objections are not only not policy-based, they try to beg a special exemption from policy - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, and should probably have been a G11. I just went through checking all the sources. Almost everything is a press release reprint or churnalism, a primary source, an irrelevant citation that doesn't even mention the article topic, or a cite that literally doesn't back the claims made. This is straight-up crypto spam - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note, this job offer on Upwork hiring users to participate in this AfD. GSS (talk |c|em ) 05:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Access is restricted to Upwork users only." Could you please c'n'p the text here? - David Gerard (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The post doesn't mention the name of the article but there is some other evidence that confirms it was for this AfD. Please check your inbox. Thank you – GSS  (talk |c|em ) 11:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The post doesn't mention the name of the article but there is some other evidence that confirms it was for this AfD. Please check your inbox. Thank you – GSS  (talk |c|em ) 11:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article is promotional, and is in blatant breach of WP:NPOV by presenting cryptocurrency-based instruments (in general, and this one specifically) as unambiguously good. They are absolutely not and are horribly risky, as the massive collapse in cryptocurrencies over the past 12 months or so attests. And, as David Gerard says above, the sources are problematic and are not acceptable for demonstrating notability. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete David Gerard and Boing! said Zebedee have analyzed this article correctly. The topic is not notable and the article was written for promotional reasons. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. Balkywrest (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT; no neutral sources in article, and the article is written to promote a financial product that appears possibly fraudulent. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:43, 22 January 2019 (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.