Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medicalchain

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medicalchain[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Refs are all whitepapers, to educate buyers about the product and press releases. scope_creep (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are mentioned in RS at least once: Denver Post's article [1] which is not used in the article now. But at this point, nuke & pave is probably best. Of note, IBM is a partner so even the IBM source is not independent and as I mentioned on WP:COIN, junk sources – Coincentral, CoinJournal, ICObench, cryptocoinmastery.com and CryptoSlate – constitute the bulk of the article's material. As nominator stated, WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH fail. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as promotional, by apparent undeclared paid editor. Borderline notability at best. The combination justifies deletion--on facy. I'd even support )inprinciple) a speedy criterion. DGG ( talk ) 14:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is promotional in nature and none of the sourcing is to mainstream, independent, reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so much spam this version is not salvageable. Should be deleted with no prejudice if an unconnected editor creates a decent article with proper sources and no spam about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this is an advertisement, not a legit WP article. Please get it out of mainspace. I doubt if an article could be created per WP:ORGCRIT, but maybe. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the sources are very poor. I think the idea of introducing blockchain technology into healthcare merits an article, but this may not be it.Rathfelder (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rational--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Need independent coverage outside the industry. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.