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. Sandstein 08:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blockweather Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

First created in September 2017 and promptly deleted straight afterwards, this relatively new hedge fund remains as non-notable as it was just under a year ago, with no substantial new sources, but a lot more Crunchbase etc. company profiles jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unremarkable hedge fund that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The text itself is identical to the deleted content and was created by the same user. Possibly native advertising. I've already notified the creator of WP:GS/Crypto. MER-C 20:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Weakly sourced ARTSPAM, fails NCORP/GNG, delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 21:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 21:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 21:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 21:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG and NCORP. Likely a violation of PROMO. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete Blockweather was among the first cryptocurrency hedge funds in the world, established in 2016. It is the #1 ranked cryptocurrency hedge fund on digitalcurrencyhedgefunds.com, which is the only such ranking of cryptocurrency hedge funds that I know of. It is among the only cryptocurrency hedge fund in the world open to both retail and institutional investors. It has among the most experienced of any cryptocurrency trading teams, including traders from Wall Street and Chicago.
  
• Blockweather is among the only cryptocurrency hedge funds registered with the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
• It is among the cryptocurrency hedge funds with the most experience in trading of options.
• Previous news articles mentioning Blockweather have been listed on FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, InvestorPlace, Google News, Yahoo!, International Business Times, and the Wall Street Business Network.
• Blockweather's Founder was interviewed on CEO Money on iheartradio, on a Hawaii radio station, and by a CNBC reporter.
• Blockweather has partnered with several other prominent cryptocurrency businesses worldwide.
• Blockweather is a member of the Microsoft Partner Network.
• Wikipedia page "List of bitcoin companies" lists numerous bitcoin-related companies, many of which are less notable than Blockweather and some of which were defunct 3-4 years ago, and such less notable companies have existing Wikipedia pages. For example: The last references cited for coin co were from February 2015. It's website (coin.co) simply states "We'll be back," and I am unaware of coin.co having any relevant notability. It has a Wikipedia page.
• 37coins has a Wikipedia page. It is a bitcoin wallet provider that existed from 2013 to 2015. On its Wikipedia page, 4 references are listed, the last in May 2015. The "official website" listed is nonfunctional. This company also has no relevant notability.
• In contrast to the less notable companies on the List of bitcoin companies, each with their own Wikipedia page, Blockweather is the #1 ranked global cryptocurrency hedge fund. Millions of people around the world are aware of Blockweather.
• My understanding is that a global information source, such as Wikipedia, should provide information that is sought after and is relevant to a significant number of people. Many pages on Wikipedia are about obscure topics and defunct and irrelevant companies. I saw an article about a specific high school in Russia. This would be relevant to few people. The Wikipedia page has no references. An article about Blockweather would be relevant to millions of people (who are already aware of Blockweather).
• The Blockweather Holdings article can be modified as needed to address any concerns noted above, but it should not be deleted. Blockweather has been covered in multiple, significant, independent, reliable, secondary sources - more so than several other bitcoin-related companies with Wikipedia pages.--Digitalcurrency (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. This is the best explanation I've seen, from KJP1: It's always tough to help new editors understand that comparisons with other articles are rarely strong arguments. This essay has a good shot at explaining why. Wikipedia's a constant work in progress and articles are created, amended and deleted all the time. I see both of the competitor articles you cite have been either tagged for deletion in the past, or still tagged as "multiple issues". A quick look suggests to me that at least one of them is very weakly-sourced. Neither may survive. Or they might. But, in the end, your draft will be accepted on its own merits, or declined on its own flaws. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotional, poorly sourced, (other stuff as well!) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Insufficient evidence of ntability, Fails GNG and NCORP. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:21, 14 June 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.