Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchorage Digital

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anchorage Digital

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

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

Non-notable crypto firm, sourcing is largely from blogs and PR sites. The Forbes Crypto appears to be a blog-type posting. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Finance. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Forbes through me for a loop at first because of the URL extension ".sites," but it appears that even staff written pieces have that extension now. This one was written by a senior reporter and senior editor and not part of any of their partner programs. The CNN article is borderline as it has a ton of quotes from the founder. However, there is this from Bloomberg written by two staff writers, San Francisco Examiner, and this from a staff writer in Fortune.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - surprised by CNMall41's evaluation of sources above in comparison to some of their other reviews, but nonetheless agree there seem to be enough references including but not exclusively those listed above to support for inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CNMall41 and Indefensible. Sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources provided meet GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2023 (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.