Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulden (digital currency)


 * 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. As there is an overwhelming majority !voting "delete" (even if the one SPA is taken into account), I am not draftifying this at this moment. Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Gulden (digital currency)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability, largely uncited, one RS and some crypto blogs. This is cut-down from a much more blatantly promotional version, cited to primary sources and crypto blogs. David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume Parool is the RS that you are talking about, this then means that you think sportnext.nl is a "crypto blog", which it most clearly is not. It seems you are overly hasty in your rush to purge this article, first you attempted a WP:PROD despite it clearly not being the reasonable way forward and now you don't even do basic fact checking in your claim of no notability. If you think sportsnext is a "cryptoblog" then how hard could you possibly have searched to determine notability? I'd say not at all... (102.182.161.211 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.161.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Het Parool "Internet buys wildly at the Gulden of this Amsterdammer" is about the price rise in October 2016. They do not know why it went up "Waar de plotselinge run op zijn Gulden vandaan komt, weet hij niet./He does not know where the sudden run on his Gulden comes from." Sportnext does not appear to be a reliable source. Their twitter account says "SPORTNEXT is de grootste sportmarketingcommunity van Nederland./SPORTNEXT is the largest sports marketing community in the Netherlands." The article "Collaboration FootGolf and digital payment means Gulden; partnership of the future?" has no named author and is most likely a press release or paid promo. Џ 00:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While that may or may not be true (different argument) - it does not change the fact that the original assertion is wrong, he claims that of the four current sources in the article one is a RS and one is a "crypto blog" and this is an inaccurate claim. Changing the argument does not change the inaccuracy of this claim, and the fact remains that anybody who is making such an inaccurate claim is likely either biased or not actually even reading the links in question - or both. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

(102.182.161.211 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.161.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Keep:
 * There are plenty of notable sources for Gulden, a brief search turns up:
 * https://www.rtvnoord.nl/nieuws/194786/Een-drankje-betalen-met-guldens-het-kan-in-Groningen (Main stream dutch public broadcaster)
 * https://www.oogtv.nl/2018/06/in-groningen-betaal-je-met-de-gulden/ (Main stream dutch public broadcaster)
 * https://www.rtlz.nl/tv/laatste-videos/video/3776371/gulden-moet-de-bitcoin-doen-vergeten (Live TV interview with main stream dutch TV broadcaster)
 * https://www.businessinsider.nl/rijk-plasman-gulden-2018/ (Interview with business insider a major publication - there are at least 2 if not more other business insider articles)
 * http://linuxmag.nl/2-algemeen/1200-de-nieuwe-gulden-crypto-uit-nederland (Detailed multi page article in notable dutch magazine)
 * https://issuu.com/abnamro/docs/ff-2018-02_los/48 (Gulden featured in publication by major Dutch bank)
 * This is from just a brief search, there are from what I can tell literally dozens more articles across multiple main stream dutch publications, while not all are notable on their own there are definitely many that are and collectively they show that Gulden has achieved a level of main stream awareness in the Netherlands.
 * I suspect this article is being claimed "non-notable" by people who speak mostly English and are not from the Netherlands and are therefore imposing their own reluctance/inability to translate Dutch and/or intolerance for other cultures as a lack of material.
 * A single american editor with a clear lack of interest in a dutch coin has taken it upon himself to delete, as opposed to correct, all text added to the article and as such has stunted the willingness of anyone to attempt to contribute to the article.
 * Review of sources
 * RTV Noord which is a local radio station.
 * OOG more local news.
 * RTL Z seems like a more significant publication but interviews aren't independent coverage. Same for Business Insider.
 * I think there is a general misapplication of what 'notability' is going on here, criteria for source inclusion are not the same as criteria for whether an article should exist or not. The former is more to do with "whether it is first hand information or not" while the second is more to do with "is this a subject which has attracted public interest or not", to quote "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition" While a source like the above would not meet the criteria for inclusion within an article, an interview like this does show that there was clearly a lot of public and media interest in Gulden at the time, alone it does not make notability but if combined with the dozens of other articles, the independent market survey showing large support for Gulden in the Netherlands and so on it does. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I think this is an accurate translation of the Dutch Linux Magazine article (Google Translate says the Dutch pdf is too large). It's the most detailed but I don't think it's the most reliable. It seems to be a guest article. See the "Write for Us" page in the English version.
 * Even if this were true (that it is a guest article), magazines do not have to print articles that are submitted and do have editorial oversight, they have not printed a giant disclaimer stating that its a guest view. Further after a bit more searching, it appears they even considered it important enough to include on the cover https://klant.reshift.nl//STORE1//lin_jaar.png
 * From a magazine perspective you usually put on the cover what you think will sell copies, this suggests that the magazine considers Gulden a notable enough subject that it should be on the cover to sell copies. While not a huge thing on its own it again speaks towards general notability. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Feature in the bank's magazine doesn't let me copy the text. But the cover and pages 16-24 show that Gulden isn't the only cryptocurrency topic covered. Џ 00:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two articles about cryptocurrency one to do with Bitcoin and one to do with Gulden amongst many other pages that are not to do with cryptocurrency. The magazine is not about cryptocurrency but they felt the public would want to read about Gulden, this again shows a pattern of interest/notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.182.163.117 (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)  — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Additional source
 * A few more sources from searching, still dozens to work through, strangely I seem to be the only person here actually looking for sources while the people calling for deletion seem unwilling to perform any search whatsoever (this speaks to a possible bias on their behalf)
 * https://www.rtlz.nl/node/17276 (More coverage by rtl-z - not large or significant on its own but speaks to a pattern of regular media coverage)
 * http://www.tns-nipo.com/nieuws/persberichten/aantal-nederlandse-beleggers-cryptovaluta-dit-jaar (Large independent survey agency conducts significantly sized survey on crypto investments - mention of Gulden is brief but speaks to a pattern of continued interest)
 * http://www.tns-nipo.com/nieuws/persberichten/aantal-crypto-investeerders-met-100-000-afgenomen (Same survey agency conducts follow up survey and this time finds Gulden notable enough to state its percentage - stating that of the estimated 480000 Dutch crypto - this seems notable to me)
 * https://www.at5.nl/artikelen/131523/patatje-sat-betalen-met-de-guldencoin (Another TV appearance)
 * Five "crypto blog" articles, not really that noteworthy, but again it all adds up toward notability
 * https://cointelegraph.com/news/all-that-glitters-is-gulden-dutch-cryptocurrency-boasts-impressive-adoption
 * https://cointelegraph.com/news/most-user-friendly-crypto-gulden-user-experience-streamlined-in-major-update
 * https://cointelegraph.com/news/gulden-passes-10-million-mark-heads-for-top-20-cryptocurrencies
 * https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-beyond-nerds-how-to-get-the-average-joe-to-use-cryptocurrency
 * https://cointelegraph.com/news/peoples-bitcoin-gulden-makes-significant-gains-without-hype — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.182.163.117 (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)  — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Market researchers and crypto blogs still don't pass WP:RS, even as you keep posting them - David Gerard (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Market researchers ... still don't pass WP:RS". Though you repeatedly attempt to claim that WP:RS does not in fact say that at all, it appears that for some reason you consider your opinion to be fact and beyond question. Why not let others comment on the link, I'm sure its more the content you find objectionable than the source, you also (delibritely?) ignore all of the other sources only in favour of talking about "crypto blogs" this shows your anti crypto currency bias, you shouldn't be involved in crypto currency articles at all as you clearly are unable to remain objective. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * RTL Z "Cryptocurrencies: not only bitcoin, but also potcoin and gulden" focus is not on gulden but a general video about cryptocurrency. They put up IOTA's logo at 0:15 and PotCoin's at 1:53 but not for Gulden.
 * AT5 local news. Џ 01:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Further sources
 * https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/02/07/je-hoeft-blockchain-niet-te-snappen-6572486-a1544900 - Major newspaper in the Netherlands does article on blockchain and of the thousands of currencies and entrepreneurs in the space picks Gulden founder to interview, this speaks again to a general notability/interest/recognition of Gulden in the country, people and media want to hear about/from Gulden.
 * https://www.bright.nl/nieuws/artikel/3916516/cryptomunt-gulden-keurmerk-voor-icos-nodig - Copy of interview that appears also in RTL Z "z-life", z-life version appears to no longer be online
 * https://www.emerce.nl/nieuws/bitcoin-variant-gulden-opent-spaardeposito - Article on Emerce.nl an online publication targeted at digital "decision makers" (business focused) which the Dutch wikipedia has this to say (Through emerce.nl and supported by various social channels Emerce keeps daily more than 300,000 followers informed of the latest news in digital business. The site is known for its thorough journalism." - covers Gulden functionality released last year
 * https://www.emerce.nl/nieuws/deonlinedrogistnl-accepteert-gulden - Another (older) Emerce.nl article where they talk about a major Dutch online pharmacy accepting Gulden as a payment method.
 * https://www.emerce.nl/wire/zwakte-crypto-weer-blootgelegd - Another very recent Emerce.nl article where they talk about crypto currencies undergoing "51%" attacks; and cite Gulden as an example (only example they pick) of a currency that has looked at and implemented solutions for this. (102.182.163.117 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 10:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)  — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * First link was already posted 5 days ago below.
 * Emerce probably a reliable source only if it's written by "Redactie Emerce/Editor Emerce" (they have a lot of non-staff writers). Though the Dutch Wikipedia article is lacking citations including that part you quoted. And the third Emerce link was submitted by a Gulden person "Dit artikel is een ingezonden bericht en valt buiten de verantwoordelijkheid van de redactie./This article is a sent message and is not the responsibility of the editors." Џ 08:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet more sources
 * https://www.dvhn.nl/economie/De-gulden-is-terug-in-Groningen-maar-nu-als-cryptomunt-23233216.html - Large regional publication covers Gulden merchant adoption in the city of Groningen
 * http://www.quotenet.nl/Nieuws/Baudet-en-Wilders-kunnen-juichen-Gulden-weer-betaalmiddel-in-Groningen-215521 Quote_(magazine) article about Gulden merchant adoption in Groningen
 * http://www.quotenet.nl/Nieuws/Gulden-oprichter-Rijk-Plasman-pleit-voor-een-keurmerk-om-cryptocrisis-te-voorkomen-209486 Quote_(magazine) Article about Gulden founder calling for a "quality mark" on crypto currencies
 * http://www.quotenet.nl/Nieuws/Bitcoingulden-moet-hype-worden-in-horeca.-Iedereen-mist-de-gulden-toch-186389 Quote_(magazine) Article about merchant adoption in several Subway stores as well as other content about Gulden. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Dagblad van het Noorden asks me to register to view the full article and the second link is about the same thing anyway. Quote magazine sources look okay to me. If you think this is truly notable could you please make an article in Dutch, because this isn't something non-Dutch speakers would hear about. Џ 16:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've located a copy (can't guarantee it is 100% exactly the same) of the article here https://guldenbites.com/nl/2018/06/01/media-dagblad-vh-noorden-gulden-verovert-groningen for those who are unwilling to do the free registration to read the actual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.182.166.30 (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - I considered nominating this myself when I removed some of the cruft from the article this morning. Most of the coverage in sources has the tone of press releases and some of the other coverage is passing in nature. I'm not familiar enough with Dutch sources to be able to make a strong statement in support of deleting, but at least some of the sources do seem like cryptoblogs. We really need to hammer out a guideline for cryptocurrencies and related topics. For now, this does not seem to quite meet WP:SIGCOV.- MrX 🖋 21:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NSOFT / WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I question how hard you have looked for RS coverage. A further few minutes searching has revealed.
 * https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/02/07/je-hoeft-blockchain-niet-te-snappen-6572486-a1544900 (fifth most circulated newspaper in the Netherlands - seems significant - might not cover the technical details as much as would be liked but that is not relevant for notability)
 * http://www.tns-nipo.com/nieuws/persberichten/aantal-nederlandse-beleggers-cryptovaluta-dit-jaar (Large survey agency conducts significantly sized survey on crypto investments and considers Gulden notable enough to mention it)
 * http://www.tns-nipo.com/nieuws/persberichten/aantal-crypto-investeerders-met-100-000-afgenomen (Same survey agency conducts follow up survey and this time finds Gulden notable enough to state its percentage - stating that of the estimated 480000 Dutch crypto traders 56% hold some Bitcoin while 21% hold Gulden - agency clearly considers this significant to the point that they continue tracking it over time)
 * These are just the first few I stumbled on, a quick search has turned up a list of dozens upon dozens of newspaper articles or references that need to be trawled through. (102.182.161.211 (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.161.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Marketing agencies who talk about how to "grow your brand" are not WP:RSes, and particularly not for crypto coverage - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That you (probably deliberately) confuse/misrepresent an independent market research group; one of the largest in the world, and that is cited in various other wikipedia articles as a "marketing agency" speaks volumes about your bias here. (102.182.154.36 (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC))
 * I see you're working hard on convincing others. In any case, market researchers quite definitely do not pass WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * NRC Handelsblad "fifth most circulated newspaper in the Netherlands - seems significant" but it's not. "Drie ondernemers leggen uit hoe zij de wereld overtuigen van blockchain/Three entrepreneurs explain how they convince the world of blockchain" from three different organizations and most of it is quotes. Џ 01:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Major newspaper does an article on blockchain, of the thousands of currencies and even more entrepreneurs in the space, they pick only 3. One of those 3 is Gulden and is given a significant amount of space in the article. Why? Clearly because they think people want to hear about Gulden. I don't see how you can possibly claim that is not significant, it speaks to notability which is exactly what article inclusion/deletion is about. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Of the thousands" will be limited to those in the Nederlands and available to interview. Џ 08:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NSOFT. Balkywrest (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly as more than software but as a currency project WP:NSOFT which is intended for articles about more conventional software does not apply here, if it did -all- cryptocurencies outside of Bitcoin and potentially maybe Ethereum would need to be removed, I do not see WP:NSOFT being applied in other cases therefore this would be inconsistent. (102.182.154.36 (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.154.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally considered a failing argument at AFD, so probably doesn't achieve what you want - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with articles about all cryptocurrencies outside of Bitcoin being deleted? I, and I'm sure many other editors, would be very happy if that happened. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: It is in the public interest to be able to find out unbiased information about cryptocurrencies, and the Gulden wikipedia entry should be part of that Gulden is considerably less controversial than many cryptocurrencies as it is over 5 years old, and was not started as a get rich quick ICO. With regards to notability Gulden has been used by up to 150,000 users and Gulden has attracted controversy, which is notable by itself. The developers have published, developed and implemented innovative blockchain techniques which justifies the term 2nd generation blockchain.  The fact that this is not more widely known I would argue is a case to make the wikipedia entry more detailed rather than deleting it or removing much of the content continually on the grounds that it is just marketing.  I would argue that technical details of the unique features of Gulden are interesting and are verifiable from the source code and the developers whitepaper.  The Developers claim to be making innovation in blockchain technology and the success or failures of the progress should be documented in the entry.


 * WP:NSOFT Does not apply as Gulden is a Blockchain, not a software product
 * WP:NORG Does not apply again, as Gulden is a blockchain and associated community based infarstrcure which does include some organisations but is not in itself an organisation 12:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)12:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBelshaw55 (talk • contribs)  — JBelshaw55 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete The best source is the Het Parool article published in October 2016 when the price was going up a lot and they didn't know why (pump and dump?). The other sources are local news, interviews, features in minor publications (Linux Magazine and that bank's magazine), or otherwise not reliable sources. Not good enough. Џ 00:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * These  short articles in Emerce could be useful, but still a delete for me. Џ 08:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Update Neutral on deletion now per   Quote magazine sources. Џ 16:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Not credible user It should be noted that the user Џ posts negatively on most blockchain related entries other than on, where he/she is super positive. Not credible.50.29.194.50 (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC) — 50.29.194.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No policy based argument given by this IP. Balkywrest (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT. The one source I found that actually talks about the company is listed as a scam when I went looking for reviews. Search of Google, Google Books, Google News has nothing significant about the Gulden. Of the sources cited above, the ones I checked look like they mention Gulden, but not talk in depth about the comapny itself. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ORGCRIT Does not apply as this article is not about an organisation but a decentralised currency.
 * Criticism of the multitude of sources already listed is vague, weak, based on speculation and seems more like an out of hand dismissal of the sources by someone who made up their mind in advance as opposed to an actual application of thought toward the sources or reading of them. (102.182.166.30 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.166.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:ORGCRIT says: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The citations you mention talk about where the Gulden can be used, not about the specifics of the company and the hows and whys of the currency. Hacked.com had a good article about just that, but I'm not seeing other significant coverage, and it doesn't seem WP:RS. Endless links to mentions of the Gulden do not go towards notability. Significant does not equal lots and lots. WP:BLUD. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Additional sources (business insider)
 * Seems business insider have been quite consistently and frequently covering Gulden over the last few years.
 * https://www.businessinsider.nl/de-gulden-terug-nederlandse-bitcoin-kloon-stijgt-4600-waarde-een-jaar-tijd - 2016 article talking not only about the price increase, but also some Gulden functionality and merchant adoption, references several other of the sources mentioned in this discussion which adds notability also to these sources.
 * https://www.businessinsider.nl/de-digitale-gulden-blijkt-volatiel-waarde-van-nederlandse-bitcoin-kloon-3-dagen-gehalveerd - Another 2016 article talking about price (both increase and drop), and additionally merchant adoption.
 * https://www.businessinsider.nl/de-gulden-ondanks-enorme-crash-toch-een-betere-belegging-dan-bitcoin-dit-jaar-voor-extreme-gokkers/ - 2016 article talking about price drop
 * https://www.businessinsider.nl/digitale-gulden-record-dollar-bitcoin-cryptomunt - 2017 article talking about price raise compared against dollar and bitcoin, is not overly flattering, also makes brief mention of work the Gulden team was busy with at the time speculating it might be the reason for the price rise.
 * https://www.businessinsider.nl/naast-de-gulden-zijn-er-nog-zeker-13-andere-nationale-cryptomunten-de-deutsche-emark-en-dollarcoin-leggen-het-af - 2017 article talking about other national currencies that are not the Gulden, the tone of the article assumes that readers already know about the Gulden and not about the others. If this does not suggest notability of the currency I don't know what does. Article states (paraphrasing) "don't worry the Gulden compares favourably to its competitors"
 * https://www.businessinsider.nl/de-bazen-van-grote-cryptomunten-ethereum-en-ripple-vervloeken-kleinere-broeders-hoe-gaat-het-eigenlijk-met-de-gulden - 2018 article about price crash (Ethereum, Ripple, Gulden and other cryptocurrencies) then goes on to compare how they (the larger currencies) have recovered while Gulden has stayed "flat".
 * https://www.businessinsider.nl/digitale-gulden-cryptomunten-2018 - Recent (2019) article abut Gulden and how it has done in the "bad year for cryptocurrencies", not very flattering, however still shows that there is substantial and independent interest even when things are not going well price wise... References also the Het Parool which lends more notability to the Parool article as well as this one.
 * https://www.businessinsider.nl/rijk-plasman-gulden-2018 - (This one has been mentioned before - but feel it should be brought up in the context of the others). Even more recent (2019) article, clearly a follow up or related to the one above, interviewing the Gulden founder and giving him a chance to reply. (102.182.166.30 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.166.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete: While it's clear there are many unregistered users bombarding blogposts and unreliable sources, there are a few good ones in the batch. This would lean me towards a weak keep, however:
 * It's unclear to me whether or not any of these actually establish notability
 * The article is currently written like an advertisement
 * I think the best approach would be to delete the article and let it be resubmitted through AfC. If there truly is significant coverage and notability, it will be re-added to the encyclopedia without a hitch. Dr-Bracket (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your talk of blog posts are simply inaccurate, while you may question the quality of some of the sources to suggest they are blog posts shows a lack of proper diligence on your behalf.
 * Note that the article allegedly reading like an advertisement is not reason for deletion. "When to not use deletion process? Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing." - if it reads like this it should be improved and not deleted, submit an edit that makes it read less like an advert. The main reason the article is likely so short is that a single editor has consistently and for a long period of time deleted all efforts at improving the page instead of making use of the appropriate processes to facilitate improvement.
 * Calling for an article to be deleted so that it can go through AfC is silly, the page is here already, if there is any doubt about its removal then it should not be removed. (102.182.166.30 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.166.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Draftify, i note that most of the defense of this article here has been made by an ip who has made no other contributions to WP (apart from the article), they have also bombarded this afd with numerous (over 35?) sources, all/most of which appear to be questionable, suggest that this goes to draft so that it can be worked on for submission to afc. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ADHOM is not a valid deletion reason. Criticism of sources is vague and makes no attempt to engage in the source discussion, it appears unlikely you have read any of the sources. (102.182.166.30 (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC))
 * It appears unlikely that you read what i wrote, i did not say delete as you imply. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've given the article some more thought and I agree that a draftify could be appropriate in place of a deletion. The WP:SPA has dumped many sources, and if some can be verified to establish notability it should get through AfC without a problem - however the current article does not reflect that, and if you could somehow argue it did then you would really have to go look at the dozens of other deleted cryptocurrency articles and contest them the same. Dr-Bracket (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * A note on the majority of delete voters on this page
 * There is an emerging pattern amongst delete voters - Every single delete voter makes only vague criticism of the sources with no attempt to properly engage with them, it appears extremely likely they have not even properly looked at them. The only delete voter Џ who has properly engaged with the discussion and shown any attempt at some kind of proper source review has changed his vote to Neutral. All delete voters thus far are also in violation of WP:IGNORINGATD - it is therefore clear that they are less interested in upholding a proper process than they are in seeing this article go due to WP:IDL and that most of these votes boil down to WP:JUSTAVOTE (102.182.166.30 (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC))
 * WP:DROPTHESTICK, you are not helping your cause. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * COI query posted to IP's talk page - David Gerard (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As nominator - I'd happily support draftifying. The sources are really not convincing people ... but perhaps a non-trash article can be put together - David Gerard (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2019 (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.