Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogecoindark


 * 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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Dogecoindark

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, only coverage are some price analysis. Just because it has "Dogecoin" in the name doesn't mean it bears even one-hundredth of Dogecoin's notability. I recently had to remove original research amplifying this "coin" prominence - it tried to promote itself as having higher intraday volume than Dogecoin on some cherrypicked date. Esquivalience t 14:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Velella  Velella Talk  14:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No reason to delete, as all information in article is accurate, non-speculative, and factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunerok (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

there is no reason to delete this. all information is factual, and there is no price analysis, as Esquivalience cried about in broken english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunerok (talk • contribs) 17:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Take your promotion somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a replacement for your nearest newswire. Esquivalience t 18:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Dogecoin is notable. This isn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Software (electronic currency) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. The one ref listing blocks is not RS, nor significant coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: As per nomination, doesn't meet WP:GNG or any other Wikipedia criteria for article. Textbook case of WP:COI user who doesn't bother with minor details like Wikipedia guidelines.  If  had the slightest understanding of WP:COI or WP:CHERRY at all, this article would have never been created.  (Of course, if Sunerok had any shame about conflict-of-interest or cherry picking, he wouldn't be be pointing out someone's one-letter typo after making elementary English mistakes in the first 4 of his 6 edits,, and doesn't believe in "minor" things like signatures or edit summaries.  Would you trust the integrity of a cryptocurrency system written by someone who misses stuff like that while blaming someone else?)  Anyway, no to Dogecoindark on Wikipedia: WP:NOTDIR and all the other basic guidelines Sunerok didn't read before he put this on the Internet. --Closeapple (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above. "Accurate, non-speculative, and factual" =/= notable. PianoDan (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2015 (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.