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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MazaCoin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency. The only claim to notability is that it is "the official currency of the Lakota people", which is not true per the WSJ, and the other sources provide no evidence whatsoever of this claim.

The entire premise of the articles is that it is an official currency or will be used by the Lakota people, and none of these have hweappened.

The sources are clearly questionable due to their inconsistencies and lack of evidence. The media coverage was sensational and short lived. --Surfer43_¿qué pasa? 00:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with nominator's premise that notability was based on its official status; notability was claimed based on its attracting notice and significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. While many sources mentioned the official status, not all did (Christian Science Monitor and CoinDesk, for example). Different views of the cryptocurrency's official status, and of the tribe/nation's status, are discussed in the article, and provide a good example of why Wikipedia requires multiple independent sources to establish notability.

I also disagree with the nominator's deletion rationale that coverage was short-lived and sensational. The WP:Notability section "Notability is not temporary" says "once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." It does allow for exceptions, in particular for otherwise low-profile people associated with a single event, and allows for reviews of past decisions "from time to time", but I think the previously-established notability is still valid. An essay at WP:NOTTEMP gives an example of non-notability with a topic that was covered for 2 days and never covered again, while Mazacoin attracted significant coverage over a 2-3 month period (the currency launched in February). Ongoing coverage has definitely diminished since March, when the subject was last nominated, but it has attracted some coverage since then (e.g., in mainstream news sources like Fortune, Scientific American, L'Express (brief coverage), and dubiously-RS bloggier sites like Bustle, Absolute Rights, and Новости по-русски). Agyle (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice amount of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2014 (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.