Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novacoin


 * 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. Consensus seems to be that the sources do not show notability for this alternative currency. At least one of the keep votes even acknowledges this, while asserting the article should be kept anyway, however given the lack of reliable sources it seems unlike a verifiable article could be written about this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Novacoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has been missing decent sources that demonstrate notability for several months now. I was only able to find a few passing mentions (in reliable sources), typically in a list with several other cryptocurrencies. Smite-Meister (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This Guardian piece is the best source I could find, and it has three sentences about Novacoin. Would not call that significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smite-Meister (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Added a few services links to article discussion page. It seems that something like services section should be created. 109.188.124.90 (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks. But I'm unsure is it allowed to add such information or not? TheJediMaster777 (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete due to the majority of sources being nothing but technical documentation by the author. Novacoin only has a passing mention in The Guardian. [ citation needed  ] 02:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search finds passing mentions, numerous forum posts, and promotional sites, but did not turn up any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete my searching turned up some trivial mentions, but nothing significant enough to indicate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete likely doesn't pass GNG.LM2000 (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - The article sources have changed. Now we have Arstechnica, rbcdaily, coinmarketcap... What here isn't notable guys? --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 16:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Coinmarketcap certainly isn't. Rbcdaily has a passing mention, which I'm sure you know isn't enough. The Arstechnica article does not even mention Novacoin by name. Smite-Meister (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, what about Forbes? --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 18:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's not even a passing mention of this thing in that article - just a listing of its value at the time the article was written. There is no discussion, no context, no independent coverage. Surely you aren't arguing that that one listing is sufficient to justify articles on all 30 cryptocurrencies in the article, are you? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I only want to provide a reliable website, which says this currency exist, so it becmoes notable. --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 19:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody here doubts the existence of Novacoin. The problem is that notability requires much more than that. Smite-Meister (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Insufficient coverage from reliable sources. Most of the article seems to be based on forum posts and technical documentation. We need independent analysis, not fans chatting on bitcointalk. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable; no reliable sources. I hate to not assume good faith, but all of these cryptocurrency articles with no reliable sources and bunches of editors arguing against deletion because "it is notable/it has a high market cap/it's new and different" makes me wonder whether people are promoting them in order to raise adoption rates (and hence, value) of these cryptocurrencies. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The major digital crypto currencies, of which this is one, deserve and should have a wikipedia article each. We are doing the readership, contributing edtiors and the wikipedia project a great disservice with the pedantically absurd requirements of notability. People are just hearing about these currencies, and the best place for realiable, encyclopedic knowledge is right here. Intersofia (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We can't write a reliable, encyclopedic article without reliable sources describing the subject. No such sources have been provided. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - C'mon, guys, it's the second known *working* implementation of proof-of-stake, with own approach. Actually, the most part of new PoS/PoW hybrids (e.g. Yacoin) are forked from Novacoin repository. Maybe there is a lot of work to do, but there is no real reason to delete this article.TheJediMaster777 (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: relisting, very close to the standard consensus threshold, let us discuss more.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Second working implementation of proof-of-stake? If you can demonstrate this using reliable sources it may merit Novacoin a short mention in the proof-of-stake article (which it already has), definitely not an article of its own. Then again, the whole concept of proof-of-stake seems to be limited to cryptocurrencies so that whole article should probably be merged with cryptocurrency. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've read the discussion above and the sources found, but they have insufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Similar problems to other pages in this category. Sourcing is drawn heavily from web forums, wikis, and raw-data webpages. Some trivial mentions in the news, but it doesn't look like GNG is being met by the page in its current state.Breadblade (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2013 (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.