Deletion of Power Ledger (2nd nomination)

Comment: The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per  is for multiple sources (at least two) of |significant coverage with |in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing |"Independent Content". Forget about whether it was published in a "reliable source" or whether in your opinion it is "significant coverage". That's not the complete picture of what is required. There must also be "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include ''original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject''. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)

Comment: per  and . Block-chain companies are extremely common. The sources cited seem to be routine business news coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: These block chain companies and routine articles about them are a dime a dozen. All the sources provided in this AfD about the company seem to be extremely trivial or otherwise not usable for notability. For instance a 250 word "article" isn't in-depth coverage and the freelance guest writer in the Guardian article isn't a reliable source. Neither is the Australian Governments website. While an article about them raising initial funds for their cryptocurrency is trivial coverage according to  and could apply to the beginnings of most cryptocurrencies. People invest in them. That's how they work. Also, according to the consensus in a discussion on RSN, conference papers aren't generally reliably. So, I see nothing notable here, couldn't apply to every other cryptocurrency startup or that passes  in any fashion. Nothing about any of that is surprising though
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:NCORP)

Comment: the previously used argument " There is sufficient coverage in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources to allow _insert article  name here_ Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources that are Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent of the subject" appears to be based on mentions and did not involve thorough review of each and individual source listed. The company does not pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)