Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beam Privacy

: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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_preload&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Beam Privacy}}&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beam Privacy}}&editintro=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_intro&preloadtitle={{urlencode:Beam Privacy}}§ion=new&title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_undeletion&create=Request request the article's undeletion]. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

=[[:Beam Privacy]]=

:{{la|1=Beam Privacy}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Beam Privacy}})

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines - most of the sourcing is about underlying technologies rather than the product itself. firefly ( t · c ) 06:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 06:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
:Hello @Firefly, thank you for your feedback. I have made some adjustment to the article in respect to your feedback.
:Furthermore, I seek your guidance on how to further improve the article. Niranaos (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Delete: Apart from it not being at all obvious that this passes WP:GNG, the sourcing is atrocious, failing to hit WP:RS in many of the alleged references. I agree with the nom thatch of this is about the underlying tech rather that the topic itself. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
:An update has been done to the referencing. Kindly point out which section or part of the article you think is not properly referenced. Niranaos (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

::Is there any new comment or recommendation concerning this article? Niranaos (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

: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.