Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decred (3rd 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency. The main disagreement was "Is the Chicago Tribune article a local source?" and I think it was. It's labeled as a "Blue Sky Original" and they all seem to be about Chicago startups https://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/originals/ Is there anything better?

Pinging participants from the 2nd AfD which was closed early because it was nominated by a sockpuppet. Џ 23:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - lack of reliable sources, the Forbes article is by a Forbes staff member (not a "contributor"= blogger) so might be considered an RS, except that it only mentions Decred in passing and certainly does not document the "fact" it is supposedly referencing. The Trib article is about Decred and in some depth, but it is a bit breezy and all it really claims is that the cryptocurrency is just starting. A weak reference at best. One weak reference does not cut it. 2 would not cut it either. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Smallbones - and is Security Intelligence an RS or an IBM promotional newsletter? - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably not a reliable source but it may link to better sources. The Security Intelligence article on Decred links to articles that come from press releases when it says "According to The Hacker News" and "according to Softpedia." But their most recent news article has links in "Researchers at Proofpoint", "Check Point came across" that may be useful. Here's a news article that doesn't link to an external site in the text but there are "Sources: Trend Micro, Wired" at the bottom that should be used instead. Articles that are not from the news section seem to all be promotional articles from IBM employees and it might not be obvious from a quick glance. For example the article "Maximize Your Security Operations Center Efficiency With Incident Response Orchestration" doesn't mention IBM directly but has a disguised link to their website in "According to the Ponemon Institute’s Cost of a Data Breach Study,'" in which says "IBM is proud to sponsor the 13th annual Cost of a Data Breach study, the industry’s gold-standard benchmark research, independently conducted by Ponemon Institute." Џ 03:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete clearly non-notable. Fails the WP:NCORP requirements. R2d232h2 (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Striking comment from sockpuppet of a banned user. Cunard (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Degeri (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC) — Degeri (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. More sources: https://mailchi.mp/technologyreview/chain-letter-767021 https://www.ccn.com/decred-jumps-34-after-politeia-announcement-binance-listing/
 * One of them appears to be from an MIT Tech Review newsletter. But I couldn't find it published on their website (only relevant result is video of a Decred conference which isn't independent coverage). It's two short paragraphs after it listed on Binance and I guess he didn't think it was important enough yet for the main site. "It seems like an innovative approach to blockchain governance, which many crypto projects are struggling with. We’ll see if it actually works." WP:TOOSOON Other source is a cryptocurrency news site and from the result of Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251 I don't think most users would accept them for notability any time soon. Џ 03:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The best source about Decred is this article in the Chicago Tribune. I could not find significant coverage in other reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future if more sources are found. Cunard (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

New articles for consideration: https://www.forbes.com/sites/leslieankney/2019/01/11/who-should-hold-power-decred-governance-and-what-it-means-for-investors/ https://www.coindesk.com/one-of-investors-favorite-governance-blockchains-is-handing-over-20-million https://www.coindesk.com/decred-is-turning-its-entire-21-million-crypto-treasury-over-to-investors en﻿ https://www.blockchaintechnology-news.com/2018/01/23/atomic-swaps-decentralised-exchange-community-decred/ https://www.investinblockchain.com/what-is-decred/ --Degeri (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Forbes contributor blog, crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable Balkywrest (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2019 (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.