Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chainlink (cryptocurrency)

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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Chainlink (cryptocurrency)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Chainlink (cryptocurrency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Notability not established, tech blogs and Forbes/Bloomberg cannot be used to show notability. The sources cited do not contain indipendent research per ORGIND/CORPDEPTH, they are equivalent to PR reprints. Ysangkok (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The article cites numerous perennial, reliable sources per WP:RSP, such as Reuters, ZDNet, Bloomberg and Forbes. Sources such as these are reliable sources that show particularly significant coverage. I think this clearly passes WP:GNG. Hocus00 (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hocus00: In the list of perennial sources, it is noted that "Forbes' contributors" are not Forbes staff, and cannot be trusted. Looking at the references of the article, they are all by contributors, not staff. see WP:FORBESCON. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ysangkok: This is not true. All of the Forbes cites used in the article are written by Forbes Staff. See 123. Which Forbes cites do you believe are written by Contributors? Hocus00 (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Has plenty of coverage from reliable sources. Honestly surprised to see this nominated as it’s exactly the kind of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia. Star7924 (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Star7924: Why is it "exactly" the kind of thing? You're just making a statement with no explanation. Look at the referenced articles, and you'll see they contain no independent research, they are PR fluff pieces, they rely on Chainlink to provide correct information. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep notable cryptocurrency --Devokewater 14:49, 4 May 2021 (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.