Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moolah


 * 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. Although online processing and crypto-currency may be notable in general, the arguments put forth show that there's no proof that this individual one is. the panda ₯’ 10:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Moolah

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to meet notability standards of significant coverage by independent reliable sources Agyle (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment There are a few articles that mention Moolah in one passing sentence, describing it as a payment processor. There are also a few articles that mention an errant charitable contribution worth around US$15000 made by the company's founder, but these mention the company only incidentally. I found one article about Moolah, on Coindesk 2014-05-05. Agyle (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree Moolah is a fairly important aspect of crypto-currency particuarly for dogecoin (which is by no means a small currency) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BinarySquareRoot (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Subjective importance of a topic is not considered in determining whether articles topics are considered "notable" enough to be kept (by Wikipedia's definition of "notable" - see WP:GNG if you'd like to read the guidelines for article inclusion). For the most part, Wikipedia's "notability" is based on significant coverage in multiple, independently-published "reliable sources" (for example, certain magazines, newspapers, scholarly journals, and websites). Agyle (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔  12:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see sources which evidence the notability of this cryptocurrency under WP:GNG --j⚛e deckertalk 17:01, 31 May 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.