Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patientory

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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patientory[edit]

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

zero evidence for notability; the sources are about their plans, not their accomplishments-- and they are jsut PR, like everything in any bizjournal. Forebes is about the principle, not the company DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article fails to meet either general notability or WP:CORP guidelines. References either don't deal with the company and its product in depth or are derived from sources that aren't reliable or aren't independent. For example, the Forbes references are by "contributors" and the Huffington Post reference is from its "Contributor platform", not staff writers subject to editorial review. The BlockchainNews website promotes use of blockchain technology, not an independent voice. Some references are to blogs. The references all refer to Patientory as a "startup". Several refer to the novelty of its "initial coin offering" and creation of a "healthcare cryptocurrency" to finance the company but novel or unusual does not mean notable. If widely adopted, the company and its products may become notable at some time in the future but don't currently merit an article in the encyclopedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 17:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New references have been added since nomination and those bear a little more analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPIP, GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- references fail WP:CORPDEPTH; the article is exclusively promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 20 October 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.