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 02:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CoinTelegraph[edit]

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

This online magazine doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG/Wikipedia:Notability (media)/Wikipedia:Notability (websites). My prod was removed by User:Kvng who noted that this publication is used as sources on Wikipedia quite often, and deserves a discussion here. He does raise a good point, partially: years ago I noted that the bitcoin area seems to be heavily referenced from several walled garden publication like this one: they, and generally only they, report about even the tinyiest developments in the field, and their 'coverage', IMHO no different from press-release quality, has been used to justify keeping stubs on numerous startups in the field. We need to dismantle this spam garden, and this is not a bad place to start. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's enough, but it gets cited quite a lot in other more mainstream publications. Whilst I agree the article right now fails to establish notability, it is in fact notable Deku-shrub (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- clearly WP:TOOSOON per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:12, 30 June 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.