Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandacoin


 * 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Pandacoin

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet GNG. The article only has three references, two of them are first-party and one of them is from a generic cryptocurrency database. I was unable to find significant coverage of this crypto-coin from reliable sources independent of the subject. Breadblade (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of coverage to be found in the specified newssites related to the coin. Having over 289.000 users is by itself relevant enough to be added to Wikipedia. Added 2 more references from newssites + link to wiki. Hope this helps. Ozzke (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikis aren't reliable sources and both those articles seem to be from people with a financial stake in Pandacoin, so I'm not 100% sure how independent/reliable they are in this case. The author of the Cryptonews article admits they had spent 3 weeks mining Pandacoin, the Cryptoarticles piece is less problematic but they do seem to be pulling for the project's success. Also this "289,000 users" figure seems to have been pulled out of thin air. Breadblade (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ozzke, I removed the references, as they did not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (click that link to read about those standards). (Other editors: here is the version before I removed the references.) I also removed references to pandacoinpnd.org, as I couldn't find any suggestion that it really is the coin's official website; the bitcointalk.org "announcement" forum post for the coin stated that thepandacoin.com is the correct website (a malware program on my computer indicated high risk that the site is associated with command-and-control malware, so I did not view it); one of the non-RS "articles" you cited said thepandacoin.net is the official website, and another bitcointalk.org announcement said that thepandacoin.org was its website, although that might have been for an unrelated Pandacoin that happens to have the same name and logo. Note that if you want to suggest reliable sources with significant coverage about Pandacoin, you don't actually need to include them in the article; it's enough to simply link them here for reviewers to consider. The nomination depends on notability of the subject, which is unrelated to the state of the article. ––Agyle (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not seem to meet GNG. It's just not anything notable at all at present.  I see no reason to keep it.Sanpitch (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient significant coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability. It received a brief mention 2014-03-11 in International Business Times (UK edition) for being pumped 4400% within a day before closing at a 700% increase. There was a full article on Pandacoin, including an interview, in a 2014-02-14 Cryptocoinsnews.com article, although this is a site I don't consider a reliable source due to its frequency of factual errors and apparent lack of editorial control expected for a serious news organization. Pandacoin is also covered in a number of other blogs and quasi-news sites that I would consider far from reliable (like not even close to Cryptocoinsnews.com), but beyond that I didn't find even trivial mentions in sources that I consider reliable. ––Agyle (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Citation Needed  &#x007C;  Talk  23:17, 26 June 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.