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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy (blockchain software company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. Native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 13:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Note common outcomes advises: "Generally, companies that are included in major stock indices such as S&P 500 Index or FTSE 100 Index will have sufficient in-depth independent coverage for notability." And this ain't that. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and as failing WP:NOTINHERITED, since this provides serves for other companies, but isn't notable itself. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I submitted the page to Articles for Creation with a disclosed COI. It was reviewed/approved by @The Most Comfortable Chair:, presumably based on the articles I brought to their attention in Forbes[1][2] and WIRED[3] and Bloomberg [4]. I believe these constitute 2+ in-depth stories in national media outlets focused on Alchemy, per WP:CORP. Alchemy is not public and working with big companies does not bestow the business with notability. However, I would think being the biggest company in our field would be relevant, which is why the draft mentioned that. Thanks for letting me participate in the discussion on your site. Best regards. Camcrowe (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes fails WP:ORGIND as its an interview style article which involves the company, the 2nd Forbes ref fails WP:CORPDEPTH as its routine coverage, the Wired reference, fails WP:ORGIND as its another interview style article which involves the company. The Bloomberg reference fails WP:NCORP as well. All the references that are there are typical of a startup, more so as its a generic cryto SAAS company. There is no secondary sources that are not PR, or not explaining what it does. It fails WP:ORGCRIT. Its native advertising on Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 22:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. At best (given scope_creep's comments), this is WP:TOOSOON, but it really does feel more like just cryptocruft. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. I agree with the analysis of sources above and I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:11, 10 June 2022 (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.