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. Joyous! | Talk 00:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decred[edit]

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

Nominated previously for speedy delete, but tag was removed without clear reason. Article fails WP:GNG and is subject to copy-paste copyright violations of promotional content. This is a new "product" that got some exposure in the press but has no lasting legacy or notability (yet). P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt This probably should have been nuked as soon as the copyright violations were called out. That, and there's no content! 157.235.66.80 (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Preaky (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2016 (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.