Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auroracoin


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Auroracoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hey Wikipedia, so I heard you like altcoin discussions.

This article has the usual concerns as with most of these altcoins, such as possibly not meeting WP:GNG (although this doesn't violate WP:PROMO, so we're going in the right direction). I'm neutral. Citation Needed &#x007C;  Talk  22:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I would say that this one definitely meets GNG, as it has been covered by a Wall Street Journal blog, TechCrunch and the International Business Times from a cursory scan of news articles, and has the distinguishing gimmick of being tied to Iceland somehow. That said, the article itself could probably be improved, sourced better and watched for the usual issues with promotional content and original research, but I don't think it warrants deletion at this point. Breadblade (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment to debate closer Please wait until at least March 31, 2014 before closing debate. A large amount of additional reliable source coverage is anticipated around March 25, which should be considered in assessing deletion based on notability. Agyle (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Coverage in independent reliable sources clearly has this meeting notability threshold.  The Blue Canoe  21:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - even though I assume good faith I really do not understand the point of the nomination. Even the nominator doesnt seem to think this subject is non-notable/important. We do not put articles up for deletion just to have an improvement discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable as it is the first altcoin being rolled out to the entire populus of a country. It also has a high capitalisation.--Penbat (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Penbat, both of those are invalid reasons for keeping an article. "Notability" in this sense refers to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, summarized at WP:GNG. Read WP:AFDFORMAT or see the first two keep votes for examples of what to discuss. Agyle (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets GNG based on multiple sources of significant RS coverage. There have been numerous articles about Auroracoin in independent reliable sources in the past, including major financial publications like The Wallstreet Journal, Forbes, and Bloomberg. As today's "Airdrop" process kicks off, there has been an additional flurry of coverage from dozens of publications. Examples from the past 24 hours include: Ziff Davis Forbes CNBC Voice of Russia Vice News CoinDesk Motherboard Iceland Review Bitcoin Magazine International Business Times UK Gawker and ''The Guardian. Agyle (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. No arguments at all given to support deletion. --Rsmelt (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per secondary sources from Agyle and also because European altcoins should be put better at light such as the VatiCoin one. ONaNcle (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2014 (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.