Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yacoin: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:02, 17 December 2013 editCypherious (talk \| contribs)14 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:18, 8 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk \| contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB
(22 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
			:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
			<!--Template:Afd top

			Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

			The result was '''delete'''. After disregarding the opinions that are based on such matters as market capitalization or technical merits, none of which are relevant under our inclusion guidelines, consensus is that this topic hasn't received sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources for us to be able to write an article about it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
	===]===		===]===
	{{Not a ballot}}		{{Not a ballot}}
	{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD\|W}}

	:{{la\|Yacoin}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)		:{{la\|Yacoin}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
Line 19:		Line 25:

	*'''Keep''', is a unique altcoin that has had a market capitalisation in the millions of dollars (is tracked by coinmarketcap) though lately it has fallen a bit. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)		*'''Keep''', is a unique altcoin that has had a market capitalisation in the millions of dollars (is tracked by coinmarketcap) though lately it has fallen a bit. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
			**There are some unique McMansions in my town that have a market value in the millions of dollars. Should they get an article too? Come on -- <b>] ]</b> 15:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


	*≈'''Keep''' Yacoin is so young that no traditional academic sources have been able to review and publish information about it. Misplaced Pages's policies are self-destructive when they prevent the free publication of information because of something as archaic as publication cycles. Ditto for most other cryptocurrencies.] (]) 06:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)		*≈'''Keep''' Yacoin is so young that no traditional academic sources have been able to review and publish information about it. Misplaced Pages's policies are self-destructive when they prevent the free publication of information because of something as archaic as publication cycles. Ditto for most other cryptocurrencies.] (]) 06:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
			:* I'm not sure AfD is the proper place to raise a dispute with Misplaced Pages's notability policy. ] (]) 11:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

			*'''Delete''' spam article about non-notable software. ] (]) 06:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

			*'''Strong keep''' delete arguments are not actual. The article have receved more refs which makes much above comments inaccurate. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 11:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
			::Please read ] - none of the sources provided thusfar are independent reliable sources.] (]) 11:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

			*'''Delete''' Unfortunately there has been no coverage for this coin that falls under Misplaced Pages's Reliable-Sources definition. However, based on that definition, it's terrible that it's much more likely a "joke" coin based on a meme meets that definition <ref>http://www.geek.com/apps/the-best-invention-on-the-internet-dogecoin-a-more-viable-alternative-to-bitcoin-1579442/</ref>. ] (]) 15:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
			**I'm sorry, but isn't a reliable source? --] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
			:::A trivial mention in a reliable source is not enough to demonstrate notability. ] (]) 19:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
			*'''Keep''', nice amount of refs for potential improvement, — ''']''' (]) 05:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
			* '''Delete''' The Google search above doesn't return any ] that support notability of the subject. ] (]) 15:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
			* '''Delete''' Very low market cap. ] (]) 23:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
			::Market cap is not a reason to decide anything on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
			:::For my opinion it is. It just don't have a value at all on the cryptocurrency market. ] (]) 22:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
			:::: That's cool but you should read that little infobox about Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines at the top of the page. ] (]) 23:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
			::::: Market cap is not the only reason for my deletion vote, e.g. it's not notable enough. ] (]) 23:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 15:18, 8 February 2022

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. After disregarding the opinions that are based on such matters as market capitalization or technical merits, none of which are relevant under our inclusion guidelines, consensus is that this topic hasn't received sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources for us to be able to write an article about it. Sandstein 09:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yacoin

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Subject appears non-notable: yet another Bitcoin fork, with no reliable sources to speak of. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete the only "sources" backing this coin are technical documentations released by the author. 02:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Could not find any reliable sources using Google, just forums, blogs and project sites. Not notable. Looks like yet another attempt at using Misplaced Pages to promote a pyramid scheme. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete per above, my searches haven't turned up RS coverage either. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep, as it actually is the first coin to use the scrypt algorithm correctly, c.f. the twitter of the scrypt creator at ]78.52.81.125 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The twitter of the creator really isn't what WP policy considers a reliable source. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep, is a unique altcoin that has had a market capitalisation in the millions of dollars (is tracked by coinmarketcap) though lately it has fallen a bit. Mathmo 04:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- There are some unique McMansions in my town that have a market value in the millions of dollars. Should they get an article too? Come on -- Y not? 15:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

≈Keep Yacoin is so young that no traditional academic sources have been able to review and publish information about it. Misplaced Pages's policies are self-destructive when they prevent the free publication of information because of something as archaic as publication cycles. Ditto for most other cryptocurrencies.Cypherious (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure AfD is the proper place to raise a dispute with Misplaced Pages's notability policy. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete spam article about non-notable software. InShaneee (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Strong keep delete arguments are not actual. The article have receved more refs which makes much above comments inaccurate. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources - none of the sources provided thusfar are independent reliable sources.Dialectric (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete Unfortunately there has been no coverage for this coin that falls under Misplaced Pages's Reliable-Sources definition. However, based on that definition, it's terrible that it's much more likely a "joke" coin based on a meme meets that definition . Thirtybird (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but Forbes isn't a reliable source? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A trivial mention in a reliable source is not enough to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep, nice amount of refs for potential improvement, — Cirt (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete The Google search above doesn't return any WP:RS that support notability of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete Very low market cap. YubbaDoo (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Market cap is not a reason to decide anything on Misplaced Pages. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

For my opinion it is. It just don't have a value at all on the cryptocurrency market. YubbaDoo (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That's cool but you should read that little infobox about Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines at the top of the page. Smite-Meister (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Market cap is not the only reason for my deletion vote, e.g. it's not notable enough. YubbaDoo (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2013 (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.

http://www.geek.com/apps/the-best-invention-on-the-internet-dogecoin-a-more-viable-alternative-to-bitcoin-1579442/