Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decred (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Outcome. Nominated by globally banned editor so discussion tainted. No objection to early renomination by an editor in good standing Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Decred
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is too soon at best, with the article supported largely by original research and unreliable sources. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have significant in-depth coverage. I have not found much other than promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. (Note, this is from my notability survey and there is a ongoing discussion on the overall topic area. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Ping editors from previous AfD on this article: -  -  - . Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as per Db-g4. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I had it checked and it is not eligible for CSD G4. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * From WP:ANI, diff, copied below:


 * Keep - Seems like there's plenty of significant, third-party coverage by reliable sources to satisfy GNG. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. I couldn't find any coverage in reputable media. The article cites a few questionable sources: article in a local news outlet Chicago Tribune, article in Forbes, which is essentially a blog, and mentions Decred in passing, and a few questionable cryptocoin sites like CryptoCoinNews, AltcoinNews and BraveNewCoin. This does not seem to qualify for in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Chicago Tribune is about as local as the New York Times. It's the leading newspaper of the third largest city in the United States. And the article in the Tribune is a full feature article. Forbes is also a reliable source. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine, suppose we count that article in CT as an article in a reputable source. Forbes is a kind of a blog, and the cited article mentions Decred in passing, so it doesn't count anyway. One article is not in-depth coverage. Retimuko (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would expect a minimum three, preferably a half dozen articles of that standard before this is even close to passing the threshold of a valid article at this point in time, taking into account the current policies and consensus on the inclusion of similar articles on similar subjects. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the headline of the Trib story is "Chicago developers launch Bitcoin alternative", I'd say yeah, it's a local story. --Calton | Talk 07:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per Retimuko. Pretty much every adjective used by Gigglesnorthotel doesn't fit. --Calton | Talk 07:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The Trib is the only reliable source, and it's very crystal ballish. The best I can say is "not yet." Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Has received some coverage but I do not think it quite meets the GNG. It can be recreated if/when it does. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of sources already cited indicate notability, plenty more coverage is available - check out the news link. Cannot be deleted on the basis of GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2018 (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.