Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feathercoin (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 No Outcome. Nominated by a globally banned user so this discussion is tainted. No objection to early renomination by an editor in good standing. Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Feathercoin
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) 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Ping editors from both previous AfD's on this article: -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - . -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep at the moment: it seems you're in the process of writing a new SNG for cryptocoins (and I applaud the effort) but at the moment I'm just going by GNG and CORP and such. This altcoin is five years old now, and there are more in-depth writeups in sources like Lifewire, Coindesk, Coindesk again, Bitcoin Magazine, and The Merkle. I can't really comment on the reliability of these sources but they do show in-depth coverage over an extended period of time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I was initially assuming delete based on the article's source, but a quick search impressed me, particularly checking news. I found the following reliable sources that are independent of the subject in the article: and found by searching: . These are OK, but questionable (not sure if the source meets RS, but probably could), from the article:  found by searching:   This one, in the article, is the most sketchy but seems OK:  and I didn't bother to check these sort via searches. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I've trimmed much of the primary source verbage from the article. Some of the SPAs may need to be warned about COI. Needs to be linked to es.wiki. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I linked it on Wikidata, for editors convenience the es.wikipedia article can be reached here. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete changed vote after sleeping on it, reading the discussion at Talk:Cryptocurrency linked above and looking closely at the sources. There are lots of comments on the web which show evidence of having read the primary sources, but not of having critically examined them. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:58, 18 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.