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. I have to discard many "keep" opinions, including most of the "Strong keep and improve" variety, because they do not address the sourcing situation, but only assert notability, or even argue that reliable sources are not needed, which is incorrect. Among the remaining opinions, there is consensus that the sources are insufficiently reliable to support an article at this time.  Sandstein  10:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feathercoin[edit]

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 Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia 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)).

Feathercoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Last discussion resulted in a no consensus. Almost all sources (minus the Tech Cocktail) are either technical documentation, blogs, or forum posts. Article is in a much better shape than last time, but I believe that it isn't enough to pave through. [citation needed] 02:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There seems to be quite a bit of coverage of this in somewhat diverse publications, such as San Francisco Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, and The Economic Times, for example, along with several noted in the original AfD. I'm surprised that discussion was determined to be a no consensus result, it seemed like the delete arguments were all addressed when several sources were provided. Ivanvector (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources provided by Ivanvector above are only trivial mentions, and not the significant coverage that is required to demonstrate notability. The same is true of the sources provided in the last Afd. My searching isn't turning up anything better. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The refs to reliable sources provided mention feathercoin in 1 sentence (or less). A search finds passing mentions, numerous forum posts, and promotional sites, but did not turn up any significant RS coverage. Article was created by a now-blocked user as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Google search did not find any relevant sources beyond those presented by Ivanvector, all of which are just passing mentions. Smite-Meister (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Feathercoin is new to the crypto currency marketplace. It has an active community and a high volume. We should wait to see if it grows in popularity before deleting the article entirely. Sean Egan (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and Improve - Sources are not primary, notable, so there's no reason to delete. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 13:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and Improve This is a much needed topic and is made clear, the article just needs to be improved some more.--71.15.234.141 (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good amount of source coverage here. — Cirt (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable; no reliable sources. I hate to not assume good faith, but all of these cryptocurrency articles with no reliable sources and bunches of editors arguing against deletion because "it is notable/it has a high market cap/it's new and different" makes me wonder whether people are promoting them in order to raise adoption rates (and hence, value) of these cryptocurrencies. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Litecoin, probably as a single section with a couple of refs. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Google search I ran began promisingly, but the number of RSes that covered the subject with sufficient detail ended after the first hit: http://www.itbusinessnet.com/article/Feathercoin-%28FTC%29-Emerges-as-Arbitrage-Powerhouse-Within-Cryptocommodity-Marketplace-Claim-BitcoinIntel-Analysts-2971260 . The sources in one of the early responses discuss the subject, but only in passing. Other discussions are in relation to Bitcoin or other are not WP:RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and Improve Feathercoin is young thing, but exist and it has already history. That’s why the article should stay. If something wrong with sources then there can be discussion to improve article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.105.69 (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC) — 91.158.105.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• "Strong Keep" and "Keep Improving" as Feathercoin is a significant and unique crypto currency that is emerging. It has more of a history that many other new currencies due to its attack, active community, and increasing adoption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travwil (talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC) — Travwil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep - Cryptocurrencies are virtual Internet creations of young age, so it's a bit problematic to have coverage for them in printed academic sources or alike. The article has been improved over time. Let it be continued. WSF (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and improve - to continue with an easy to understand description for all interested in this crypto currency Sradics (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - To plagiarize a former user's comment, the content of the article suffers from "unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The refs to reliable sources provided mention feathercoin in 1 sentence (or less). A search finds passing mentions, numerous forum posts, and promotional sites, but did not turn up any significant RS coverage. Article was created by a now-blocked user as possibly promotional." Josh3580_talk/hist 05:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve - the notability of Feathercoin in the UK has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2013 (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.