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.
Comment I believe the page should be retained. I disagree that the article fails
WP:ORG. The company and it's activities are notable in the field in which it operates and has been reported on by most cyptocurrency news websites and on mainstream media. In my view the article is not a promotional piece but a succinct, factual account of the company and activities. Citations are present from a disperate range of sources. I would find this page useful if I read a news story about an interaction between a government department or enterprise and either, Waves Platform or Vostok and wanted to check context or background here, on wikipedia.
Glerant (
talk)
12:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I have added further citation references including from CNN & Forbes news sites, expanded some sections and made small grammar edits.
Glerant (
talk)
14:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: Of the four reliable cites in the article, one's a dead link, two are the same link (and is a BLOGGER) and the last doesn't mention the subject at all. Fails NCORP and the GNG. Nha TrangAllons!19:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I am no expert in bitcoin industry but as per references and industry it has good coverage. Better an expert from an industry can explain.
Mia Watson (
talk)
15:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete We already have an article
Waves platform, which covers thir technology. An additional one for the company serves no purposes but promotionalism/ Given the similarity of the names, there's no need to even redirect. DGG (
talk )
05:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Taking heed of the comments by Razer & DGG I now agree that this page could be deleted. I moved the sections that I felt could be useful to the main page for this subject.
Glerant (
talk)
12:22, 27 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.
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.
Comment I believe the page should be retained. I disagree that the article fails
WP:ORG. The company and it's activities are notable in the field in which it operates and has been reported on by most cyptocurrency news websites and on mainstream media. In my view the article is not a promotional piece but a succinct, factual account of the company and activities. Citations are present from a disperate range of sources. I would find this page useful if I read a news story about an interaction between a government department or enterprise and either, Waves Platform or Vostok and wanted to check context or background here, on wikipedia.
Glerant (
talk)
12:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I have added further citation references including from CNN & Forbes news sites, expanded some sections and made small grammar edits.
Glerant (
talk)
14:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: Of the four reliable cites in the article, one's a dead link, two are the same link (and is a BLOGGER) and the last doesn't mention the subject at all. Fails NCORP and the GNG. Nha TrangAllons!19:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I am no expert in bitcoin industry but as per references and industry it has good coverage. Better an expert from an industry can explain.
Mia Watson (
talk)
15:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete We already have an article
Waves platform, which covers thir technology. An additional one for the company serves no purposes but promotionalism/ Given the similarity of the names, there's no need to even redirect. DGG (
talk )
05:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Taking heed of the comments by Razer & DGG I now agree that this page could be deleted. I moved the sections that I felt could be useful to the main page for this subject.
Glerant (
talk)
12:22, 27 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.