Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mastercoin (2nd 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 consensus. slakr \ talk / 08:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mastercoin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable cryptocurrency, would've been tagged for speedy deletion of recreated deleted material, but I'm assuming in good-faith that the material was modified to the minimum point of not qualifying for CSD. This article fails WP:GNG and only reliable sources barely mention Mastercoin at all. Citation Needed &#x007C;  Talk  12:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep I've removed all citations to sources where Mastercoin is only mentioned in passing. Citations 1-8 are sufficient to establish notability. Each covers Mastercoin directly and in detail. I encourage anybody who thinks differently to give them a second look. I've cut and paste some article highlights on Talk:Mastercoin. There is still some unverifiable content in the article that will need to be removed, and citations will need to get better dispersed in-line, but the topic is notable and most of the content verifiable.Chris Arnesen 17:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines (WP:GNG or WP:CORP). I would have suggested merging summary info to Bitcoin, but the article as it stands is not clearly written and is poorly referenced. Of the eight independent sources cited, I judged four to have trivial or minor coverage, and three of the remaining articles are from CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine. I consider them reliable sources for factual information, but rather weak reliable sources compared to established publications, and I weigh them more lightly in my overall notability assessment. The Forbes article stands alone as a strong indicator of notability. I do think Mastercoin could rapidly rise in notability, and should be reconsidered if it garners significant new coverage from multiple sources. Since questions of commercial promotion sometimes arise in these discussions, this is a cryptocurrency with profit-motivated investors, and Forbes mentions the primary developer holds 28% of all the Mastercoin currency, of which no more will ever be issued. The related Mastercoin Foundation is a startup company, and while it was incorporated as a non-profit corporation, its fundraising of several million dollars has occurred solely in Bitcoins, which falls into some regulatory gray areas. As noted in the Forbes article, the project is viewed by some as “an elaborate scam”. Here is my quick summmary of the eight cited sources:
 * Business Insider Australia 30 December 2013 Trivial two-sentence mention citing its valuation on coinmarketcap.com.
 * CNNMoney 21 January 2014 Trivial mention; two sentences describing the non-profit foundation, and some quotes from the foundation's spokesperson on peer-to-peer financial technology in general.
 * CoinDesk 24 December 2013 Minor mention; one sentence description, and quote from Mastercoin Foundation director Ron Gross.
 * Wall Street Journal 22 January 2014 Minor; article not about Mastercoin, but discusses it in four paragraphs in the context of Bitcoin funding of open source software.
 * CoinDesk 25 August 2013 Article about MasterCoin.
 * Bitcoin Magazine 4 November 2013 Very detailed article about Mastercoin.
 * Forbes 30 November 2013 Article about Mastercoin
 * CoinDesk 6 December 2013 Article about MasterCoin.

––Agyle (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep - The references look perfectly fine to me. Let the article stay for now, Mastercoin is one of the hottest things in the bitcoin world and will likely grow in notability over time. I'm an inclusionist. I realize some of the crypto-currency naysayers are going to want to delete this. The article is very useful and definitely notable enough. It does not really fall under WP:CORP. Danski14(talk) 17:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Danski14, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Mastercoin or the publications CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine, but the reason I consider them weak is that they lack “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” (WP:RS) that many established publications have. I am not speaking hypothetically because the publications are new; in working to replace the Willet's (Mastercoin's founder) citations in this article using the above references, Bitcoin Magazine alone makes the dubious and legally very significant claim that Mastercoin investors were buying currencies from a nonprofit organization, while the organization itself in this Wikipedia article (Mastercoin Foundation wrote the Wikipedia article) claimed that it was formed after the sale (no citation, so it was removed). Bitcoin Magazine is a legit business that publishes a print version as well, but as it notes, its editor and two reporters had no prior journalism education or experience, and in my opinion does a poor job of fact-checking. Because there is so little coverage of Mastercoin overall, particularly by truly reliable sources, claims like Bitcoin Magazine's become “facts” for Wikipedia's purposes. That sort of issue is one of the reasons behind GNG wanting significant coverage from multiple sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Forbes' article on Mastercoin gave a fair amount of coverage to Internet critics saying the company is a scam, and was explicit about the conflict of interest that should be considered in weighing what Willet said. If there were multiple sources that investigated and reported on Mastercoin seriously, a Wikipedia article could be produced with genuine facts, or at least balanced with multiple perspectives. With the existing references, I think the article will inevitably be vulnerable to distortions. As the Forbes article emphasizes, it's a controversial subject that should be treated skeptically. ––Agyle (talk) 21:01, 14 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, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not fulfill WP:GNG, the article sources haven't improved since it was last deleted. The Forbes.com article does not meet the GNG source requirements, Forbes disowns the content in the sidebar: "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer." Coindesk and Bitcoin magazine can not be considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. The WSJ blog has no apparent news analysis or fact checking, it simply repeats verbatim what the BitAngels spokesperson told the reporter (practically every paragraph is qualified with "Mr. Johnston said"), and thus cannot be considered an independent, reliable source. Smite-Meister (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think Bitcoin Magazine is a reliable source (referenced in Bitcoin, Silk Road (marketplace), Mt.Gox, One Foundation, BTC-E, Primecoin, 2013 Lushan earthquake, Social news, Proof-of-stake, I may have missed some, but clearly the editors of all these articles thought that Bitcoin Magazine was reliable enough to reference and I agree with them). The WSJ article does quote the BitAngels spokesperson quite a bit with little else, not very independent.  The Forbes article though seems much better.  Two other sources:
 * Reuters Jan 24, 2014, about BitAngles and their investment in Mastercoin.
 * Cryptocoins News January 31) an article from a less established but independent source about the upcoming MasterCoin launch date.

Obsidi (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bitcoin Magazine may be an OK source for uncontroversial facts about cryptocurrencies, but not for establishing general notability, which is the issue here. Same holds for CoinDesk, Cryptocoins News etc. The Reuters article (actually from Entrepreneur.com) is about BitAngels and Bitcoin, the Mastercoin reference is a passing mention. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't seem like there is significant enough coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Citations 1-8 are sufficient to establish notability. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, citations 1-8 are quite feeble and do not establish clearly notability. Most are trivial mentions or from sources of somewhat dubious reliability.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep The Forbes article is sufficient to establish notability . Multiple references are not necessary when there is one very strong reference, like that comprehensive article.  DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 27 February 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.