Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-coin


 * 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 move to Draft space.  Sandstein  20:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

E-coin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON for this cryptocurrency related company. Some good coverage in industry trades, but standard searches do not reveal any significant mentions in general reliable sources. Article was a good faith AFC accept (ping )  Suggest company can be mentioned on List of bitcoin companies, and this article moved to Draft space. -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment thanks for the ping, . My sole addition to this discussion is at Talk:E-coin. I intend to remain scrupulously neutral over this article. I'm not sure that returning it to the draft: namespace is particularly useful at present, based on the fact that it was not getting improved there (perhaps it cannot be improved), but the community will decide. Fiddle   Faddle  16:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now likely as although I haven't started looking closely at this, it's imaginable it is not going to be improvable or independently notable for that matter. SwisterTwister   talk  07:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the sourcing, this article would appear to just pass the guidelines for a notable company (WP:CORP). I don't think we can expect that topics that are developing rapidly and online are going to have the same sorts of sourcing of more traditional topics. At their most basic, the notability guidelines are concerned with whether there are independent and objective discussions of a topic that work in such a way as to make it worthy of inquiry and discussion. Keeping in mind that notability attaches to the subject of an article (not the article's contents), this fits. Guidelines aside, the article underwent good-faith authoring after an AfC discussion, and ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. Timtrent I promise, Wikipedia doesn't really delete every new page users author.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As an aside, User:Timtrent has a tough skin, and besides, they were the AfC reviewer who mainspaced the article, not the creator of the article -- see Special:Contributions/Olyameow for the actual creator. Another heavy contributor was Special:Contributions/Tsoydarya. Since both of them are single-purpose-usernames at present (pure E-coin), and also beginning editors from their edit-counts, I will presume they probably both would bangkeep here at AfD, and thus will not ping them in this comment to avoid WP:CANVASSING. However, at least one of them seems interested in continuing to improve the article, see e.g. this query, so perhaps re-draftify is the correct approach, as outlined below. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Draftify contents back into AfC, and Redirect wikilink E-coin to a newly-created entry in List of bitcoin companies, which is using pure WP:NOTEWORTHY and not yet WP:CSC, and thus is a good place to WP:PRESERVE the trade-rag refs. Although I found one passing mention in general-readership WP:RS, which was HuffPo-guest-blog in Sep'15 ("9 Giant Banks Make a Deal on Blockchain"), the article in question was written by a blog-aggregator person Alex Salkever who cited one of the blogs his corporation aggregates, namely the one by William Mougayar (see also ), and the namedrop of E-coin was the definition of passing mention.  E-coin was listed in a collapsed sidebar-box as "one of the over 500 blockchain-related organizations" in the universe... though in fact there are only ~444 such organizations listed by HuffPo once dupes are elided.
 * Wikipedia should have articles on the highly-cited organizations from that massive list, but not on all 400+ of them, per WP:NOTDIR (and per WP:GNG). By my rough count, not including redirects, we currently have slightly over 50 of the organizations as bluelinks (plus a dozen articles about organizations not listed there), which is 12.5% of the list aka 7 out of 8 blockchain-related orgs are not yet wiki-notable.  Is e-coin in the top decile of all bitcoin organizations?  Probably WP:NotJustYet.  In terms of extant bluelinks, just looking at non-bitcoin-specific-refs, e-coin is tied for 55th place in WP:SOURCES when simply counting publisher-noses; our top-ten-best-cited-bluelinks all have at least seven non-bitcoin-specific-WP:SOURCES, top 20 have 5+ non-BTC-refs, top 30 have 3+ non-BTC-refs, top 40 have 2+ non-BTC-refs, and the top 50 have 1+ non-BTC-refs (usually somebody impeccable like the WSJ which has a regular blog about bitcoin-and-related-topics).  Once e-coin has more than bare namedrops outside the bitcoin-trade-rags (a couple such refs would be ideal), putting the firm back into mainspace should be a no-brainer.
 * p.s. The reason to put the material into draftspace, aka draftify-and-redirect rather than simply delete-and-redirect, is that the firm may be getting additional press-coverage in the next few months; unsubmitted AfC drafts last six months before bot-cleanup, even when nobody is modifying the draft.  If the material *is* draftify-n-redirect'd then it makes sense to put a visible-comment on the redirect-page mentioning the draftspace version, so nobody starts working on de-redirection without realizing there is already a stub in draftspace for them to start from.  Also, given the usernames which created the AfC article, and the mention of Russian language support in the software, it is possible that WP:RS exist in Russian-language publisher for the corporation, which is another reason I lean towards to draftify-n-redirect rather than delete-n-redirect.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:56, 20 October 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.