Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anoncoin


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Anoncoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The typical laundry list of complaints against most cryptocurrency articles on Wikipedia, really: Not notable. Not mentioned at all in the meaningful references. Article is filled with largly insignificant technical trivia and mainly exists to promote a product. Links to several currency exchanges to lure in new users. Smite-Meister (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - As a subject matter expert, I feel that this article is useful. While Wikipedia is missing articles on a large number of crypocurrencies, we shouldn't use that as a reason to delete this page. Could it use cleanup? Yes.  Is it notable per WP:N? Absolutely.  See also: List of Cryptocurrencies -  Don4of4 [Talk] 05:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate a bit as to why it's notable? Several pages of Google search results only include the project page, random webforums, twitter messages, mining pool sites and exchanges, nothing substantial. Smite-Meister (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Anoncoin is notable because it has key design differences from the other crypocurrencies. For instance, it is the only currency which supports i2p, making it highly appealing to those who wish to stay anonymous.  As Bitcoin becomes mainstream, Anoncoin is highly likely to take it's place as the median of exchange for the underbelly of the web.  -  Don4of4 [Talk] 21:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you find some good third-party sources which demonstrate all this? Without references it's just another special interest software project with no general notability. If it becomes notable at some later time a reconsideration would be in order. Smite-Meister (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Deleting this page would be reduce the global wealth of knowledge, and that would be travesty, but it wouldn't be the first time obtuse people have done this. If there is one single independent article published about Anonocoin, then I see no reason to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasaka (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)




 * Strong delete insufficient independent indication of notability. - Altenmann >t 18:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - An epic failure of GNG — a simple Google search for the name returns 84 responses — not 84,000,000, not 84,000, but just 84 — of which I see exactly zero count to GNG. Obviously promotional in intent, because if you can make money from nothing you get chicks for free, or something like that. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose the fact that the name was uttered in passing in The Economist should be mentioned. Not substantial coverage... Carrite (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.