Deletion of BitGold

Comment: but move to Goldmoney, as the BitGold name is no longer being used (the website redirects to Goldmoney).  The references in this article are high quality - the Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2015/may/31/bitgold-new-standard-digital-currency) definitely meets all the requirements of  - it is long (about 1400 words), is almost entirely about the company, is in an independent, reliable, secondary source, and is clearly written from a point of view independent of that of the company.  The Peter Koven Financial Post article (http://business.financialpost.com/investing/bitgold-begins-trading-on-tsx-venture-exchange-as-gold-transaction-platform-builds-momentum?__lsa=c93a-82d8) also easily meets . The CNBC, Globe and Mail, and CBC sources also meet , although they cover the company in less depth.  This article does needs an update (why is there nothing after 2015?) and could use to less promotional, but those aren't reasons for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:NCORP||WP:NCORP)

Comment: The criteria for establishing notability goes beyond whether the *source* is an independent reliable secondary source, but whether the specific article meets the criteria for establishing notability including being intellectually independent expressing opinion/analysis and not reliant on company sources. https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2015/may/31/bitgold-new-standard-digital-currency The Guardian article relies almost exclusively on interview/quotation with Crumb, one of the founders and has no independent analysis/opinion. It also follows the format of history/Aha moment/funding/"future is bright" churnalism (a rare find, it has no posed photo) and is really just company marketing masquerading as real journalism. It is not intellectually independent and fails  and/or . http://business.financialpost.com/investing/bitgold-begins-trading-on-tsx-venture-exchange-as-gold-transaction-platform-builds-momentum?__lsa=c93a-82d8 This Financial Post reference (oh look, posed photo!) is another example of churnalism with the same format, etc. It is not intellectually independent, relies on quotations/interview with company sources and fails  and/or 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: Nope. The Forbes article is on one of their "sites" so its a blog, doesn't meet  never mind . The CNBC article is a video with the founders - fails . The CBC article the same - it even states "As Crumb explained in a promotional video..." - fails . Sources must be "intellectually independent" and those two fail to be as both rely exclusively on quotations/interviews with connected source (i.e. company officers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NCORP||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: does not meet  under either name. Sources are not independent,  and / or passing mentions.  per review of available sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:SPIP||WP:TOOSOON)