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 18:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synereo[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)

Non-notable cryptocurrency. Taking away the coin sites leaves this article on an Israeli business new site (Synereo is based in Israel) published shortly after they raised a few million. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - sourcing is bitcoin blogs, press releases and press releases in bitcoin blogs - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Articles about funding are rather routine; I don't think they should generally imply notability. However, I am hesitant to immediately discount all "coin sites" as unreliable. I agree there is a huge amount of hype in the area, and there are certainly unreliable sources. An RfC on CoinDesk discussed a lot of the issues, but it did not result in a consensus on which sites are necessarily unreliable. We should discuss the individual sources here on their merits. Why might Cointelegraph, Bitcoin Magazine, and Blockchain News be unreliable sources? BenKuykendall (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk is the latest go-round on WP:RSN, just a few weeks ago. So basically - some of the coin sites are somewhat trustworthy for factual claims. However, they should not be taken as evidence of notability, as they have a habit of hyping up absolutely anything in the field, whether it actually exists or ever exists or not. And many coin blogs are pay-for-play as well - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- While not exactly the same thing, the WP:NCORP guideline states "Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability as businesses frequently make use of these publications to increase their visibility." Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourcing well below par. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 21 November 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.