Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldcoin


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Goldcoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Borderline G11. Seeking consensus or someone who may want to do a large overhaul on the article. Article is nearly entirely press release, mission statement type facts and really doesn't establish notability. Secondary sources seems incidental and in my opinion not enough to create a credible article. May also be a veiled attempt to promote crytocurrency exchance, particularly considering that page author's name is BitcoinFX. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you want to delete it. It looks fine to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chovy (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Sulfur Boy. I see you stated that "in my (Sulfurboy's) opinion not enough to create a credible article..." as much as I respect your opinion on the topic, I don't believe it's a matter of opinion, as oppose to actual credibility. The page is very credible here are a few sources:^ http://gldcoin.com Jump up ^ (April 13, 2013). Mining digital gold. The Economist. The Economist Newspaper. Retrieved April 27, 2013. Jump up ^ Simonite, Tom. "Bitcoin Isn’t the Only Cryptocurrency in Town". Retrieved 24 April 2013. Jump up ^ https://github.com/goldcoin/gldcoin Jump up ^ http://gldcoin.com Jump up ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2013/08/01/how-bitcoin-works/ Jump up ^ Percival, Colin. "Stronger Key Derivation Via Sequential Memory-Hard Functions". Retrieved 24 April 2013. Jump up ^ Coventry, Alex. "Nooshare". MIT. Retrieved 21 October 2012. "These hash functions can be tuned to require rapid access a very large memory space, making them particularly hard to optimize to specialized massively parallel hardware." Jump up ^ http://gldcoin.com/documents/GoldCoin_0.7_51percent_defense_october_11_2013.pdf Jump up ^ http://gldcoin.com/overview Jump up ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system Jump up ^ https://www.cryptsy.com/markets/view/30 Jump up ^ https://coinex.pw/trade/gld_btc You can also get in contact with the developer of Goldcoin at http://gldcoin.com/contact-us/ if you need any questions answered. Thanks you ;) garcpu (talk)Nihondino (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)garcpu


 * Comment As I'm sure can be deduced from the comments above and spread over on the article's talk page, the company behind goldcoin is who created this article. A simple investigation shows that a variety of usernames have been created to create the false (albeit weak) illusion of some sort of consensus against what are glaring issues with this page. If an editor more familiar with sockpuppetry, or just how to generally handle the situation could review everything, it'd be much appreciated. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Oh Sulfurboy, I started the wiki page? I don't work for goldcoin?? Seems like your just making random stuff up to be honest? A simple investigation would show that it is TRUE and not false information. Your false accusation will go nowhere because they are silly ;) Why don't you just make the edits and help the goldcoin page? garcpu (talk)Nihondino (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep One thing that should be stated here is Goldcoin is not a company as one writer suggests. Neither is it an exchange. It does not have employees. Goldcoin is a community based top-20 decentralized cryptocurrency according to http://coinmarketcap.com. In my view, this page can easily be improved with additional references sited and should not be deleted. --Realmicroguy (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC) — Realmicroguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep, needs some cleanup but there's some good sources here amongst some other odd citations such as citing other Wikipedia articles, etc, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, Hi Sulfur Boy. I would also have to agree that site should not be deleted. The site is being actively updated with information and the articles provided shows that Goldcoin is being actively developed. So deleting an active project and community site I think is just plain wrong. I could understand if the site was no longer maintained and had outdated info or if the project referenced was no longer being actively developed. But the community for the Goldcoin is very strong and growing everyday. So I am putting in my 2 cents to oppose the removal of this page. As the previous comment listed. If you have more questions please contact the ACTIVE developers of Goldcoin at http://gldcoin.com/contact-us/ if you need any questions answered. TazMan143 (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC) — TazMan143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Not notable, reads like a recruitment piece / ad for a get-rich-quick scheme. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Could you please site an example (or explanation) of how the page reads like a get-rich-quick scheme? I'm unable to find such a reference. --Realmicroguy (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep In my view the arguments used to try and deleted the page are NOT sufficient. There are other crypto currencies like Litecoin, Namecoin, Bitcoin or PPC who have similiar pages and were not deleted. Maybe some small improvements here and there on the Goldcoin page can be made, but a deletion is just 1 step to far.--Johny0036 (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC) — Johny0036 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Per Other stuff exists, note that the existence of similar but unrelated articles does not in itself support keeping a given article.Dialectric (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This article has only just been started and the authors are new to the sphere of Wikipedia, on the discussion pages, https://www.gldtalk.org/index.php?topic=690.msg3855#msg3855 they are discussing how best to address the page's entry and what needs to be added to improve it's merit to be included. Who ever it was that flagged to page to be deleted has jumped the gun and not given the article any consideration, nore does it appear they have attempted to contact the original composer to encourage them to contribute more to the page. Timelord2067 (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I would argue that this article should not be deleted, but it needs padding out with more information. Give the community time to expand the article. Cryptocurrencies are emerging and evolving each week, and to delete an article on a genuine cryptocurrency seems unfair to me, especially when other lesser coins (ie less well used than bitcoin) are listed eg peercoin. Where do you draw the line? Well, for sure, alternative cryptocurrency developers will have fun marking each others coin wiki articles for deletion, and it will be hard to make distinctions here with petty rivalries. Goldcoin is distinct from bitcoin in that it is "ASIC resistant" with a scrypt algorithm, and in addition it has a fast transaction time; the rules for the coin generation are modeled on physical gold. This article is useful and informative at present, but is "barebones" at present and certainly needs expanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplecat103 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)  — Purplecat103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - the essential criteria for inclusion of software articles is that they meet notability guidelines. Goldcoin does not have sufficient coverage in Reliable Sources to establish notability. The apparent RSes used in the article (MIT Technology Review, Forbes, the Economist) do not mention Goldcoin at all. The academic papers are either unpublished or do not mention goldcoin. The rest are company sites, forums, and sites of questionable reliability, none of which has significant coverage of the subject. A search did not reveal any reliable source coverage of this specific currency system. Also, article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I see this as promotion--there is not yet any significant notability. Too many of the references proposed are simply not about the company.  DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 8 November 2013 (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.