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 no consensus. Tawker (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vertcoin[edit]

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

Delete, non notable Crypto-currency. While it does have some coverage most is trivial and it would require a rewrite to make this encyclopedic. I originally nominated as advertisment csd and this was declined. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable Crypto, fails Wikipedia:Notability. Minor coverage is trivial. Potential advertisement. Waltsen (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, This account appears to be a WP:SPA with no contributions to Wikipedia besides this discussion. Valoem ^talk 20:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability. The only independent RS coverage referenced in the article is the International Business Times ref. On its own, this is not sufficient to establish notability. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was covered in IBT which is RS, the coverage was not trivial either, also covered by Coin Chomp. Article's tone appears to be neutral, does not have weasel words, and has been cited by Coin Market Cap as the 20th largest cryptocurrency. Article appears to meet notability requirements and does not seem to be a self promotion.Valoem ^talk 15:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - Covered by Yahoo News and International Business Times. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-the yahoo link is just a repost from International Business Times, and is marked as such.Dialectric (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How did I not notice that? Now a weak delete. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, GNG does not depend on the amount of secondary source coverage, but on the amount of significant coverage of published reliable sources with reputations for fact checking. ––Agyle (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete failure of WP:GNG, one mention in International Business Times doesn't cut it. Your market cap a shit, and doesn't establish notability either. Citation Needed | Talk 20:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this coin is notable because it is the first coin to use Scrypt-n. Once ASIC's for scrypt become widely available this difference becomes much more important. There will be (or are) other coins using scrypt-n, but the first one is notable. Ariel. (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ [update: changed to weak delete in a later comment] coin is notable as the first coin using a new algorithm (Scrypt-n) and already has three imitators as seen on the cryptocurrency mining calculator, CoinWarz. However, the article does need to be edited to make it seem like less of an advertisement. We don't care if the coin's creator worked for Accenture or Microsoft, the coin stands on its own merits.Kb3edk (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE on update: I crossed out the word "Keep" and added an explanation in brackets per Kb3edk's suggestion on 31 March to change his vote, to make it clearer to the reviewer. ––Agyle (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this coin has a reasonable amount of usage judging by the market cap. Also it is bringing new technology - scrypt-n. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This dispute may have been the target of meatpuppetry originating from Reddit: 64-upvote post on /r/vertcoin linking to this discussion, and on Talk:Vertcoin there are a few new/previously inactive editors all saying similar things - one of them mentioned they came from Reddit. ProtossPylon 20:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Market cap doesn't matter. A novel proof-of-work algorithm doesn't matter. All that matters is significant coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I don't post on Reddit or even mine Vertcoin but when I saw the new Scrypt-n algorithm pop up on the CoinWarz mining calculator, showing Vertcoin next to it, I went to this article to read up on it and was surprised to see this article already being prepped for deletion. But I guess mining calculators do fail the Wikipedia test as "reliable sources" as they are more of a technical reference for miners like me. Also, it's true that independent media coverage of this coin is practically nil at this point, that will only change later this year when all the Scrypt ASICs force the hobbyist miners like me onto this coin. Feel free to change my vote above from "Keep" to Weak delete in case this matters. BTW, nice snarky comments from the Dogecoin article's writer Citation Needed up above too, don't worry bro I'm still mining your coin for a few more months. Kb3edk (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Coverage is a bit thin, but these two full-length articles ought to be enough. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Does not meet WP:GNG because of insufficient reliable sources. I just removed all the citations to forum posts, email archives, personal blogs, and articles about other topics which didn't mention Vertcoin or verify the statements in the article. All that remained was one article by IBT, and a bunch of citations to Vertcoin. My opinion on some arguments for keeping:

Not RS: Dailydot.com suggested by User:King of Hearts; originally self-published on medium.com, and republished as as an "opinion" piece by DailyDot (note URL).
Duplicate: Yahoo article, as previously pointed out, is a republication of the IBT article.
Not RS: Coinchomp.com suggested by User:valoem, but opinions will vary; to me it's closer to a blog than a publication with a reputation for fact checking; it describes itself as a "Bitcoin Tech & Culture Blog", and doesn't mention editorial policies or an editorial board.
Invented keep criteria: User:Jonpatterns's suggestions of "a reasonable amount of usage judging by the market cap" and "bringing new technology".

Agyle (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Currency entry without enough notability. ONaNcle (talk) 10:00, 5 April 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.