- 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. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Gridcoin (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)
Non-notable, only references are from cryptocurrency sites that does not pass WP:RS. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you may not be interested in this cryptocurrency does not mean that it is not notable. This is unsubstantiated. Also I am very confident that just because some sources may be shaky that does not mean "that it will be impossible for the article to be attributed to reliable sources". Following this reasoning we should delete all the articles in [[1]]. "Publications in this part of the world tend to be also recited by the same part." Well I don't quite follow what you mean with this. What world are you talking about exactly? Obviously pages dealing with this subject are (highly) technical but that should be no reason to delete the article. Regarding circular referencing of wiki content on 3rd party sites as wiki sources, I did not find any. I am going to be bold and remove the deletion consideration and just put up a source banner. AlwaysUnite (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has policies for inclusion, which you may read at WP:N. Part of that means coverage by reliable third party sources. Your comment that my claim is 'unsubstantiated' is strange, considering as it is not up to me to prove a negative. I've searched for reliable sources that cover this cryptocurrency, and have not found any. So what am I talking about? The fact that this topic has not received any coverage from any WP:RS, and hence should be deleted as it fails WP:GNG. Your removal of the AFD manner on the article isn't appropriate and I have re-added it. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does bitcoin magazine qualify as RS? It's used quite a lot on Wiki. -- 104.229.168.62 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Insufficient independent RS. Pax 10:50, 6 March 2015 (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.