Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modultrade

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. MBisanz ^talk 10:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modultrade[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)

Promotional article about a non-notable blockchain related company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Possible covert advertising. MER-C 19:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wrote this article by following examples of existing companies on Wikipedia to avoid advertising it. Please indicate the part that needs to be reformulated. Due to the one revert per 24h rule, I can only add one additonal source per day to make it notable and I am adding them so please don't delete the article until I do so.MJ.Bouche (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the deletion nomination is that I believe it can't be fixed. You need to find substantial, intellectually independent coverage by reliable media outlets. Press releases and cryptocurrency enthusiast websites are not reliable sources. MER-C 10:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the sources are all advertising-type non-independent coverage. No reliable sources. If the article author wishes to add reliable sources, then he can certainly do that on the talk page, or all at once on the article page, or even as a series of edits over an hour of so. There's no excuse for an essentially unsourced article like this about a commercial product. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant coverage not found. Corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 16 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.