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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EBitcoin[edit]

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

Not notable. Promotional wording. Few secondary, reliable sources. Most results for it on google are sites like Coinmarketcap, that just show it's current value. _{Vermont | reply here} 23:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: About 2 minutes after I nom'd this, I checked it for a copyvio. Evidently, most of it was copied from this. _{Vermont | reply here} 23:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another promotional Bitcoin article. No evidence of any notability but plenty of evidence of promotional editing. Despite all the refs, fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and is a violation of WP:PROMO. (In all likelihood it is another scamcoin co-opting the BTC name.) Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not Bitcoinpedia L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legit This article is legit. I am a user of this currency and this cryptocurrency exists and is used by thousands people. All the references exists and this is not a promotion, no commercial product is to sell. At the beginning, all the token have been given to the community, for free (airdrop). This is now a foundation driven by a community. This community won many votes listing (example : https://www.reddit.com/r/eBTC/comments/7s78j7/ebitcoin_made_the_1st_place_on_kucoins_community/). Capitalisation is more than 10 millions dollars and daily exchanges are important : https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ebtcnew/#markets . This article has to be kept. Thank you very much and enjoy your day. unsigned comment by JRC21

Oh, it's legitimately a cryptocurrency. It exists, it has a customer base. But, it is not notable. _{Vermont | reply here} 22:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, per nom and Hrodvarsson. We should be careful not to legitimise malicious cryptocurrencies - we do not want to become an instrument in someone else's scam. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 21:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not agreed, it's clearly not malicious, this cryptocurrency exists and works since september 2017. You should read references, this currency is legit and this page has to exist. I donated a lot of money to Wikipedia and I feel a bit shocked of that I read here. Please read the references and check the market exchanges to observe that it's not malicious. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRC21 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not being nominated for deletion because it is malicious. I understand that you may feel frustrated that it might be deleted, but please realize that Wikipedia is not a place to have every and any piece of verifiable information. We are an encyclopedia, and EBitcoin simply isn't notable enough to be included on it. Thank you for your donation, but it will not bend guidelines and policies. It's not malicious, but it's not notable. _{Vermont | reply here} 22:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I donated a lot of money to Wikipedia and I feel a bit shocked of that I read here Strike this, please. It makes it sound a little too much like you're trying to bribe us. I know this is frustrating, and that's probably not your intention, but that is how I think people will read it, and... honestly, it makes me a little uncomfortable. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 22:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Making a note of the fact that JRC21 has !voted keep two different times, neither of which were signed. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 22:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Thanks for your answer. Yes it is frustrated cause yes I am a wiki helper and yes I spent many times on that wiki page and finally removed most of informations I written. This currency is legit and exists since half a year. Community is important and it's increasing each day. This currency is notable and many publications have been done (this one from a famous crypto influencer : https://www.cryptocriterion.com/ebtc-nakamotos-vision/ ). Please tell me what I have to remove in this wiki page to be published ? Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRC21 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject of the article is not notable, there is nothing you can do to the article to make it notable. Also "cryptocriterion" is not established as a reliable source, and the egregiously promotional tone of the article makes me more convinced this is another scamcoin (100% premine is enough of a tell anyway, to be honest). Also recommending salting in addition to my original delete vote. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG - to many crypto currencies to have them all. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but undecided on salting. JRC21, if this currency were to gain notability, nothing's to say you shouldn't be able to create an article then, but it's WP:TOOSOON if that becomes the case, at the current moment. You could adapt the article into your sandbox and save it for now that way, but I would not recreate the article unless it becomes more notable. Review WP:N for a good understanding of what notability is. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:24, 2 March 2018 (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.