Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fetch.AI Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fetch.AI

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. asilvering (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fetch.AI (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)

Article has no sources and previous content was filled with non RS and self published sources and was partially written by someone who was paid for it.

As it currently stands, the article would need to be blanked in order to meet verifiability standards. Laura240406 (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can also see that similar articles about the company and CEO have been deleted on the simple Wikipedia:

simple:User_talk:桑斯春德 simple:User talk:Namaste8907

The site has also been deleted over there. Laura240406 (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Websites, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I also cannot find any reliable sources. Most are self-published or come from crypto sites, though I'm not sure if that fetch.ai is the same as this company. I don't think fetch is going to happen here.

  Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Anonrfjwhuikdzz Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep - This Page has highjacked, now I have reverted to to normal.

Kindly removed the deletion now User:Laura240406.

Kinldy check Fetch.AI . U678 (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacking secondary sources. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article was hijacked as stated by U678 and the old one seems "good enough" (has secondary sources) Laura240406 (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing notable here per WP:NCORP except some puff pieces. --hroest 15:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - The problem with blockchains/crypto project articles on Wikipedia is that most sources of crypto information are not allowed for RS despite that many of them are credible and factually-correct. This blanket ban over all crypto news sites and the exclusion of primary sources (specifically developer documentation) is the main bottleneck into providing accurate information on blockchains and crypto projects. Without them, it's extremely difficult to fill in any information at all for any crypto project. That being said, Fetch is somewhat of an exception because most news sites have provided very inaccurate information on Fetch.ai because they are based on Fetch.ai's marketing blogs and publications instead of on documentation. As usual, the most accurate source of crypto project information is not marketing or news but developer documentation. HSukePup (talk) 17:00, 7 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.