Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MazaCoin (3rd 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 Outcome. Discussion tainted from being made by a sock of a globally banned user. Lets not give them the satisfaction. No objection to early renomination by an editor in good standing. Spartaz Humbug! 22:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is too soon at best, with the article supported largely by original research and unreliable sources. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have significant in-depth coverage. I have not found much other than promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. (Note, this is from my notability survey and there is a ongoing discussion on the overall topic area. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:2 2, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Ping editors from both previous AfD's on this article: -  -  -  -  - . -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete fails CORP and the GNG. Half of the above editors have been inactive for a long while, so I don't expect much input from them. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  21:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has a number of notable sources. Jonpatterns (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Notable sources are not reliable sources or in-depth. Significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources is what would be needed, and there isn't the sourcing available. But as I said, I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Independent and Verge are two independent sources showing notability. https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5469510/native-americans-assert-their-independence-through-cryptocurrency-mazacoin https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/mazacoin-native-american-tribe-adopts-bitcoin-derivative-as-national-currency-9165314.html There is also a more recent Mashable source https://mashable.com/2017/10/09/lakota-in-america-short-film-square/#hMGh0N1DAmq3 Jonpatterns (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete the Oglala Lakota side story is an interesting marketing angle (and promotional), but not really relevant. No independent sources, no notability. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be your opinion that 'the Oglala Lakota side story' is only promotional, but doesn't have a bearing on the article unless you have a source. The Independent and Verge are two independent sources showing notability. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the sources, but I'm still not convinced that this has any real connection to the Oglala Lakota tribe. Note that I am allowed to have doubts like this in assessing promotionalism in the article, and ultimately it is up to the article writers to provide sources that establish the facts (e.g. on any official connection). Nothing in the sources convinces me that there is an official connection, in fact they've led me to the conclusion that there aren't any, that MazaCoin is a scam that is using the name of the Oglala Lakota without their permission to market a ripoff venture.
 * Strong words, I know. But consider the following:


 * The Wall Street Journal published that Mazacoin and the tribe were officially connected (about March 2014), but later retracted this. 4 or 5 generally reliable sources published "facts" about the connection, but all seemed to rely on the WSJ account. Verge also seemed to rely on the WSJ and a Forbes blogger. The promoter also made some very carefully crafted statements for these articles which seem to imply there is an official connection, but don't quite say it.
 * A Newsweek article from August 2014 is better than most of the above. Note that Newsweek has gone thru many iterations since 1999, so I'm not sure it's a reliable source. It says that there is not an official connection between the tribe and Mazacoin, that "the Mazacoin world is valued only around $63,000—a speck of dust in the crypto-currency galaxy" but that it might be an interesting platform for paying for gambling, porn, and perhaps for tax reasons.
 * Nothing that I could find on the official website https://www.mazacoin.org/ says anything about an official connection. Rather there are a few vague words "MAZA is a Cryptocurrency Network for All Sovereign Tribes" that essentially say nothing.
 * The official community webpage http://mazatalk.com/ in the external link section is a dead link.
 * An archived page from that site quotes a user quoting a reddit editor quoting a tribal official saying nothing in particular about Mazacoin (essentialy "We'll see what develops, maybe")
 * Then there is the "Memorandum of agreement" between the tribe and the Mazacoin promoter (on Googledocs only). Undated but probably from late 2013. The tribe promises nothing, but says that the promoter can give them further details and that the MOA expires after 1 year.  Apparently it has expired as the MOA is now in the trash.

Given the above, I conclude that Mazacoin is a scam that is at least indirectly making money off of some of the poorest people in the US. Wikipedia should have no place in even indirectly promoting this garbage. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the research. I wonder if the best way to proceed is to delete the article, or add the additional information? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * IMHO just delete it then take a shower. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note - I've removed all the text that suggests that this is in any way an official currency of the Oglala Lakota Tribe, and all the sources who missed the boat on this and said that it was an official currency - they are obviously not reliable sources in this context. That only leaves 2 sentences plus 1 section.  The section should be deleted since it is now unsourced.  But let's just delete the article. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject received some coverage in RS at the time of its creation but the coverage, like the coin, has flatlined, and I do not think the initial coverage or the sporadic mentions thereafter passes SIGCOV. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The coin's value had flatlined until the start of this year when it rose quickly. It as fallen again but is still higher than it was. https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/mazacoin/ Jonpatterns (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The supposed value of these things bounces up and down like a yo-yo, even with Bitcoin it does this. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * By flatline I did not just mean the fiat value of the coin, but dev activity and general use. On the topic of the value, it like the majority of coins rose in January, but is less than $0.002, down from its 2014 peak of ~$0.08, a loss of 97.5%—and as you say this is a recovery from most of the previous 4 years when it had a trading volume of less than $20 on some days! Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2018 (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.