Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MazaCoin


 * 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   keep. Clearly meets Wikipedia's notability standards per the sources provided by User:Agyle in the discussion. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 23:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

MazaCoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another non-notable cryptocurrency article. The only claim to notability being "the official currency of the Lakota people" which isn't exactly true either. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - currency is new, would probably be better moved to user space until it has gained more usage and coverage. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per Agyle's research (below). Jonpatterns (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - remove ALL non-notable coins from premises. Citation Needed  &#x007C;  Talk  20:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Just a friendly suggestion to give clear reasons for keeping or deleting an article, for example "keep, met gng with 3 articles in scholarly journals". Reviewers weigh the strengths of arguments, rather than just tally up votes. (Note: Mazacoin does not seem to occur in any scholarly journals or books.) Agyle (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG based on a significant number of articles in a variety of established media over a one month period. Article is still in bad shape, but can be improved with existing sources. There is some information from the sources seems a little inconsistent (e.g., differences in terminology, inconsistency on "official status", etc.), and these present some challenges in covering the topic, but solutions are possible. As an example, when contradictory information is presented in credible sources, both versions can be presented with in-article attribution. A list of arguably-reliable sources currently used in the article (a couple have trivial-to-minor coverage, but most are primarily about MazaCoin).:
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per above, if it's being used as an official currency and it has coverage this would pass the GNG. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the claim of "official" is murky (several RSs support it, but The WSJ retracted it), and even the legitimacy of a modern "Lakota Nation" seems controversial, an issue that predates Mazacoin. Agyle (talk) 15:58, 6 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.