Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blockchain LLC

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. ✗plicit 14:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blockchain LLC

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Blockchain LLC (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)

While company made bold claims at the height of crypto hype and was covered as such, plans fell through. There is no significant coverage of the current focus (gaming reputation). -- Luk ^talk 08:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Nevada. -- Luk ^talk 08:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete - falls under WP:PROMO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No go promo. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not going to have a strong opinion here, but I'd like to address the statement that this page is "promo". I found this article requested on either Articles for Creation or Requested Articles or some listing like that, and I like creating pages of companies like that. I in no way shape or form have a connection to this company. If the company has since gone stale and doesn't have much notability, that is one thing. But they did have lots of coverage in the past and had some interesting concepts that would have been notable had they succeeded, primarily the Smart City plan. The conception of such an idea might still be considered notable. Up to the reviewers to decide. Uhtregorn (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2025 (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.