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. (non-admin closure) Sheldybett (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vertcoin

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Vertcoin (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 cryptocurrency. The best sources from the past AfDs are IB Times and BBC News. Though BBC just has it in the side bar section called "Alt coin mining". It was only because the miner they interviewed happened to like vertcoin a lot. If they interviewed someone else it could have been a different coin. A Daily Dot article was cited by some keeps but it was pointed out that it's an opinion piece republished from someone's blog. End of the 2nd AfD an article from JOSIC is cited but the site doesn't load for me and it probably wasn't a reliable source per the objector's comments. In my opinion IB Times was the only source that can be used to establish notability. Is there anything better? Џ 01:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Babymissfortune 02:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a reference check. This has literally zero RSes - mostly primary, one unreliable, two that don't mention Vertcoin at all - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Investopedia article "3 Obscure Cryptocurrencies to Watch" wasn't written by a staff writer. There are hundreds of "contributors" to the site. NBC article "Missed the bitcoin boom? Check out these five rising cryptocurrencies" was published at a time when most altcoins were rising. Џ 04:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In your edit, you falsely marked Џ (talk · contribs) as an SPA. Can you explain your rationale for this action, based on Џ's contributions? - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Џ account was created 22 December 2018, four days before the start of this AfD. I agree that this is not a single-purpose account since this is a returning editor. Cunard (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review of sources 1) IB Times article by a staff writer that I said was okay in the nomination. 2) Article titled "6 cryptocurrencies that could become the next Bitcoin" written by Jonas DeMuro. His most recent articles are "Best payment gateways of 2019", "Best mobile card payment reader of 2018", and "Best merchant services of 2018" and he has many more like that. I don't think any of these low effort list articles establish notability. 3) Article titled "Missed the bitcoin boom? Check out these five rising cryptocurrencies" published when most altcoins were rising in early 2018. How did the writer decide what to include or is it another low effort list article with no new information? 4) Article titled "Why we benchmark with Vertcoin". Is this not a primary source? They link this article which is a review that used vertcoin to test mining performance and I guess some asked why they used vertcoin so they publish an article on why they like vertcoin. 5) I went over this in the nomination: "BBC just has it in the side bar section called 'Alt coin mining'. It was only because the miner they interviewed happened to like vertcoin a lot. If they interviewed someone else it could have been a different coin." Still so far, it's only the IB Times article that I think helps establish notability. Џ 05:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider the articles in TechRadar and NBC News to be "significant coverage in reliable sources" that provide detailed analysis about Vertcoin, not "low effort list articles". I do not consider the article in SemiAccurate to be a primary source just because SemiAccurate "used vertcoin to test mining performance". They did not create or develop Vertcoin. That they "publish[ed] an article on why they like vertcoin" and why they are using it as a benchmark is significant coverage in a reliable source independent of Vertcoin.

    Cunard (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be part of the vertcoin team for the source not to be independent. WP:Identifying and using independent sources says "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." They were mining vertcoin at the time and could have profited if it went up in value. Џ 07:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SemiAccurate's mining of Vertcoin was to "quantify the relative performance of GPUs". This is standard journalistic research. Vertcoin might go up in value and make the Vertcoin they mined in their research more valuable. I do not think standard journalistic research should render SemiAccurate an unusable source for notability. But even if SemiAccurate is disregarded, there is still sufficient coverage to establish notability.

Cunard (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: I read your response did you mean keep here? Valoem talk contrib 01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Valoem I meant to strike my deletion rationale in favor of a keep. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I corrected it for you. Valoem talk contrib 01:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see the response. I want to make sure that my rationale is clear. Subject is notable, I think it has largely been advertisement (my deletion reason) but I do note that with the proper attention the article can be sourced and written in a formal and encyclopedic fashion (not my rationale because it is established policy deletion is not for cleanup). I am on the side that they are not all bit coins are inherently notable but consensus has seemed to be that they are in the previous discussions so here we are :). Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that you did not see this response, which earlier had been moved up the page.

Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), I agree that "with the proper attention the article can be sourced and written in a formal and encyclopedic fashion". I rewrote the article with the sources I presented here. Would you reconsider your "delete" position? Thank you,

Cunard (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cunard, I can support the changes you made to the article, it looks much improved and while I still have reservations it won't be turned back to an ad platform over time by others, I'm comfortable enough with it as is to change to Keep noting that any article could have the same issue and shouldn't be the final determiner. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), for reviewing the article and reconsidering your position. I agree that the article might be "turned back to an ad platform over time by others", so I've put it on my watchlist. I have many articles on my watchlist so may overlook promotional edits that get through. I encourage more editors and admins to watchlist the page so that promotional edits can be reverted and the page protected if necessary.

Cunard (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Brewster, Thomas (2017-11-08). "This Russian Has The Power To Turn 100,000 Android Phones Into Cryptocurrency Miners". Forbes. Retrieved 2019-01-01.

    The article notes:

    to make much money from his miners so far. Indeed, he said that despite having as many as 103,000 live installs across his applications, and tens of millions of historical downloads, only 5,000 had enabled the feature. A cryptocurrency account found by Tanase showed Khripov earned the equivalent of $1,150 in Magicoin as of Tuesday. The developer was mainly focused on Magicoin, as well as Feathercoin and Vertcoin, amongst other lesser-known, alternative currencies (better known as altcoins).

  2. Georgiev, Georgi (2018-02-03). "VERTCOIN 51% ATTACK COULD HAVE CAUSED $100K IN DOUBLE SPENDING". bitcoinist. Retrieved 2019-01-01.

    The article notes:

    6. Vertcoin

    It’s worth noting that Vertcoin’s mining algorithm is deliberately geared against ASIC and ASIC-like devices by making them particularly inefficient. Instead, mining on the network is designed to be achieved solely through commonly available graphics cards. This is supposedly an attempt to hedge against mining centralization.

  3. Drake, Ed (2018-12-01). "Vertcoin loses over $100,000 in 51% attack: report". CoinGeek. Retrieved 2019-01-01.

    The article notes:

    Vertcoin

    Vertcoin (VTC) has fallen prey to a 51% attack, with some estimates suggesting losses have already surpassed $100,000 as a result of double spend transactions on the chain. It is the latest example of a 51% attack, where attackers take control of a majority share of a network, reflecting the inherent weaknesses in the proof of work model.

As per Cunard there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vertcoin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Valoem talk contrib 01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article just mentions it once as one of the coins mined so it isn't significant coverage. The other two are cryptocurrency news sites and one of the outcomes of WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk was that it shouldn't be used for notability. Though technically the RfC was just for CoinDesk I doubt other cryptocurrency news sites would get a better outcome. Џ 08:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have access to the article. It was published in December 2018. There is no exact date provided for when it was published. Here is what the source says:

    출처: 전기학회논문지 67(12), 2018.12, 1685-1689 (5 pages)

    (Source): The transactions of The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers 67(12), 2018.12, 1685-1689 (5 pages)

    The article also notes:

    Corresponding Author: Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Kangwon National University, Korea.

    E-mail: ihkim@kangwon.ac.kr

    Received: October 22, 2018; Accepted: November 3, 2018

    Cunard (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found a free access version. Their "feasibility analysis" is based on hashrates from 2014. Any coin could have been easily 51% with present day machines if you go back far enough. It may have been worth mentioning if it was based on the current hashrate, especially since Vertcoin did get 51% attacked by the time the paper was published. The best use I see is adding the quote "Because it is not a very popular blockchain, the difficulty adjustment algorithm is very sensitive to hashrate change, making it an easy target to timestamp spoofing and cherry picking attack" to contrast with all the positive things those list articles said. Џ 07:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is a good addition to the article. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps someone can reduce the walls of horribly formatted text. Please have pity with the closing admin...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All source provided clearly pass our GN guidelines. I understand that cryptotraders want to limit the control of specific currencies due to financial reasons, unfortunately we cannot remove notable articles simply to curb the influence on trading. The coin passes GNG. Valoem talk contrib 13:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. I absolutely appreciate the effort that goes into this sort of research, but please understand that being so verbose makes it more difficult to comprehend. The human brain is wired to understand things in chunks. If you can't see an entire comment at once, it's harder to understand it. I'm working on an absurdly large 5K monitor, and some of the comments in this AfD are still too long to get onto a single screen without scrolling. It's going to be even worse for people on smaller screens, laptops, tablets, or even phones. Let me suggest a compromise; if you're going to provide these long quotes, at least wrap them in Template:Collapse blocks. Then, anybody who wants to read the whole thing can unhide the quote, but it's not eating up gobs of screen real-estate all the time. And, before you object to the idea that anybody would want to edit on a phone, consider that for a good chunk of the world, mobile devices are the only way most people access the internet. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard has been asked repeatedly not to filibuster AFDs in this manner. It may be time to collect examples and seek behavioural remedies if he continues to work so badly with others - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that. It has come to the point that I hesitate closing a debate if I see that Cunard is participating. It's just not worth my time to wade through all that widely-spaced text. --Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "filibuster" denotes sinister intentions. Let me be quite clear about that and state that I've never detected anything beyond zeal. And that's not simply because I observe WP:AGF but because Cunard's extensive quotation is evidently meant to support their view and not to "delay or entirely prevent a decision." -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good suggestion, RoySmith (talk · contribs). I have implemented it on this AfD.

Cunard (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Cunard, that's great. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 21 January 2019 (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.
More