Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KittehCoin


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  19:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

KittehCoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to meet notability standards (WP:GNG etc.). No remotely reliable sources (WP:RS) mention KittehCoin. Cute name though. :-) Agyle (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I added some remotely reliable sources. Any additional steps required to prevent deletion? I plan to extend the article beyond stub as well, but right now I want to make sure the stub at least isn't deleted. --AronVanAmmers (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed their use in the article (two failed WP:RS and one was a trivial mention, in my opinion), but will repeat them here for peoples' consideration. The article's state itself doesn't particularly matter at this point (you can include media coverage here or there); adding more info without independent sources won't impact the decision. It's up to others to consider the question of notabiliity, which will probably hinge on "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (From the WP:GNG). I stand corrected in my original statement; the Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source, and does mention KittehCoin trivially; and while I don't consider Cryptocoins News a reliable source ("third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"), it's at least in a gray area.
 * Cryptocoins News, 26 January 2014.
 * Coinchomp, 4 of February 2014 ("Bitcoin Tech & Culture Blog").
 * Sydney Morning Herald, 8 February 2014. "Others have exotic names such as ripples, megacoin, kittehcoin, lottocoin, doubloons, hobonickels, nanotoken and philosopher stones."
 * You can vote to keep the article yourself; begin a reply with a * and put the word keep in bold, then explain your reason(s). I hope you'll really consider the question, based on the guidelines in WP:GNG.
 * Agyle (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: As of right now, the article has no proper sources at all, just a couple forum posts.  As for the sources mentioned above, there is no real coverage of the topic- it's just people commenting on the funny name.  Friday (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete - Electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Incidental mentions are not sufficient. A search revealed no additional significant coverage.Dialectric (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, another digital currency of no notability whatsoever. -- Cy be r XR ef ☎ 05:08, 12 March 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.