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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ucoin[edit]

Ucoin (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)

I declined a CSD because it did not exactly fit any of our predefined criteria, and PRODed it instead (Reason: Unsourced. Essay or original research (WP:OR) ). DePRODed by author who added some external links to sites that while describing the theory, are not 3rd party independent articles about it of the kind that assert notability. A search for RS has proven unproductive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - As the subject is slightly covered in reliable sources, giving it some notability. Meatsgains (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete then Move to Draft for now as my searches are also finding nothing else outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could be simply mentioned at List of cryptocurrencies. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Cryptocurrency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. The Vice ref is the only independent RS ref that actually mentions the subject, and does so in only 1 sentence. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete also in agreement with SwisterTwister about moving to draft, maybe it will be notable if someone is able to find other sources. st170e^talk 01:24, 2 May 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.