Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filparty

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 speedy delete. CSD G11 promotion and CSD G12 copyvio SpinningSpark 14:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filparty

[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!

Filparty (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)

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. The only source used is the official website for Filparty, which is obviously not an independent source. Searches, such as this one failed to find even one example of significant coverage from a reliable source. I can only find social media and other content created by Jessica Nono, who appears to be the creator of this platform and also the creator of this Wikipedia article. Would tag as WP:A7 but I don't think cryptocurrency projects meet the criteria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per nom, this is blatantly promotional of a non-notable subject. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. G11 as promotional spam, G12 as a copyvio (the text of the article is cut and pasted from the whitepaper), possibly A7 as web content with no credible claim of significance (if you consider cryptocurrencies to be web content). This is totally unsalvageable: it is promotional, written entirely in incomprehensible crypto-speak and there is zero claim of notability here - this cryptocurrency has received no coverage at all as far as I can tell. The creator states that they own the image used as the logo [1] so there is obviously some heavy COI involved here. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:09, 8 May 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.