Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobius network

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 17:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mobius network

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

I was going to nominate this for CSD but realized it was a much closer call. That said, there is nothing on the internet about the company other than a recent 500K investment from a venture capital firm -- I think it fails the GNG for lacking significant coverage. —cnzx (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass general notability or corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, I argue that blockchain technology is in its infancy right now and the company has credible founders. Every sentence has news media attribution (sometimes two) and the founder has ties to the Obama Administration White House. I don't know why this company would get deleted, but not a company like Lisk who uses their own blog for attribution and has several media sources that are not even comparably credible to the ones listed for Mobius. Anyhow, just my thoughts. Thanks. kleubay (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. If you believe they're not notable too (like this infant company) feel free to nominate the article for deletion. Everything is judged on its own merit. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. An announcement about an investment is not in-depth coverage. Note also that this cryptocurrency was founded in 2017, and so WP:TOOSOON may apply as adequate sources have not had time to be produced.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - There's numerous news sources listed that do not have to deal with an investment. Please click on all of them. Lisk was released in May 2016 and their Wikipedia page was created in June 2016. I just want to figure out what is consistent for a blockchain company. Trying to find a good example. Thanks. kleubay (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck second vote.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the company is "in infancy" that means it is WP:TOOSOON and non notable. Notability is based on what exists for sometime and noted by society and literature. I can't find reliable sources that are in independent sources and enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. The author's trying to inherit notability by saying it has notable founders or it is tied to Obama is another strong reason to delete it, because it becomes more clear it is not notable. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very little coverage outside of WP:ROUTINE or press releases. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 9 December 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.