Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaelcoin


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 05:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Gaelcoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable Litecoin fork. Citation Needed &#x007C;  Talk  11:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Gaelcoin has been actively discussed among the Irish Tech community and the founder of Gaelcoin is confirmed to be lecturing about Crypto Currencies for the University of Limerick on the 17th of May. He is also a full board member of Bitcoin Ireland. Citation regarding the difficulty can be found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=506076.0 AntonieGeerts (talk 11:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not meet General Notability Guideline requirements; lacks significant coverage about the topic in multiple published reliable sources. AntonieGeerts, the founder's prominence, or even Gaelcoin's prominence, is immaterial here; what matters is coverage in published sources. "Notability" in this context refers to Wikipedia's very specific definition at WP:GNG, not the informal definition found in dictionaries. Agyle (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Another published source https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfoHKL7Y.jpg&t=539&c=4mkGzExP_BF_gA Agyle Citation Needed AntonieGeerts (talk 09:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice picture. The article is behind a pay wall, but a search on gaelcoin reveals the article presence. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like the first source with more than superficial coverage of the topic; a couple more like this would sway my opninion on GNG. The other sources I weigh more lightly; 3 have one sentence about Gaelcoin (Guardian, RT, Hindustan Times), and 3 have around half a dozen sentences. Agyle (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. It has received a little attention, but I don't think it establishes enough notability for an article just yet. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Daily Business Post is a nice source, but seems to be the only significant source at the moment. The other sources are passing mentions, and I couldn't find anything further elsewhere. Moswento talky 12:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How many reliable sources does an article need before it becomes notable? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally, more than one. The Daily Business Post article does not establish notability on its own. Moswento talky 20:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's completely subjective, just like whether a source is reliable or not. Many editors don't require any independent sources. Personally, I weigh different sources differently, so there is no fixed numeric range, except like Moswento said, "more than one". Partly due to the basic GNG guidelines, and partly due to one of the reasons behind them: to ensure that there's enough reliable published material on a topic to write a decent article. I consider the reliability/strength of the source (e.g. peer-reviewed journal vs. borderline amateur blog), and the depth and uniqueness of the coverage (i.e. if 20 newspapers all essentially repeat a single press release from the company, I may weigh them very lightly, while others would consider that a slam-dunk for GNG). Agyle (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up regarding sources.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: I don't see any reliable third party sources, much less significant coverage other than some blog entries and interviews with people associated with which won't let it pass WP:GNG. ww2censor (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2014 (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.