Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WB21


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

WB21

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See parallel nomination of CEO at Articles for deletion/Michael Gastauer; created by same group of editors; like that article, this one has promotional pressure and sources are a mix of SPS-driven hype or articles mostly from Germany suggesting bad things. Not enough to build a decent WP article at this time and if/when we do, it may look very different from this article when it was created (oy). WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * delete as it stands when sources include Bitcoin blogs ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - For the same reasons I presented in nominating Articles for deletion/Michael Gastauer for deletion. Company only has references to contributor platform articles which are WP:SPS and some are getting pulled due to publications not being able to verify its claims. Regardless if they are using Wikipedia as a promotional platform or to attempt to gain the system, either one is unacceptable in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Comment – Not !voting at this time, but below are a few sources that are not presently in the article. North America1000 20:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal
 * Entrepreneur
 * The Huffington Post (WP:NEWSBLOG)
 * The Entrepreneur and Huffington Post pieces are by contributors, not journalists, and there is no evidence they've gone through any fact-checking process. Fin3999 (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per TNT if nothing else. It's...an entire article about the absence of reliable sources. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- non notable and "hoax-like" sounding. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per DEL7. The sources are not good enough to verify information. I also quite curious about the fact that the company is a Singapore startup and yet there was absolute silence from the Singapore media regarding this company. Every company tends to get a lot of coverage here in SG, so it is surprising that this one didn't. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2016 (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.