Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monax

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 keep. I'm withdrawing the AfD in view of the improvement in the article DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monax[edit]

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

Unwisely accepted from AfC. Written as an advertisement, using importance by association: X Y and Z use this product, os it must be notable. We joined a notable project, so we must be notable, We were mentioned by notable publications, so we must be notable. It was rejected several times; more of the same notability by association was added, and then it was accepted.

We refer promotional editors to AfC, but it does no good if we let them write promotional work there and accept it. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made some edits to bring the article inline with WP:NPOV. Multiple defects in the submission were cured in two separate rejections of this article during the AfC process over six months, during which additional footnotes were introduced to establish this company's importance in the blockchain space. Therefore I do not see why the AfC process needs to be relitigated here, barely 48 hours after the article was created.

WP:Notability is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This company meets these criteria extensively as shown by dozens of independent third-party references to its work. These references span a period of three years and include a range of first-tier publications; similar articles for e.g. Digital Asset Holdings or R3 (company), which are also notable in the blockchain space, bring far less to the table in terms of references, yet they stand. In Monax's case, one footnote (42) from an objective third-party source literally states that news about something this company did "is notable to blockchain watchers." I am not sure how much clearer one can get than that. Werhuwieyw8 ( talk ) 07:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed a lot of puffery from the article. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 18 May 2017 (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.