Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pawthereum


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Pawthereum

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

more non-notable crypto nonsense sourced to mill funding and press releases. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC) My fear here is that the votes for deletion are largely being fueled by Pawthereum’s low market cap instead of its overarching contributions and burgeoning user growth despite a sustained bear market, which is rare for a small cryptocurrency and a testament to the unwavering commitment of the development team. Pawthereum has received a lot of legitimate (organic) press from sites such as Coin Telegraph, Nasdaq, and a bevy of traditional news outlets. Besides raising half a million dollars for animal welfare (and counting), I have not seen a charity coin as robust and forward-thinking as Pawthereum. I think the argument for deletion is somewhat petty (no pun intended). Electricmaster (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourcing thoroughly atrocious, notability highly dubious. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The foundation is covered in reliable non-crypto news outlets. Examples are the News-Times, NBC Boston, Edinburgh Evening News, Edinburgh Live, Newtown Bee, and Khmer Times. These are all in-depth coverage by third-party sources. So, the claim the subject is not notable is simply not true. Angiewalter37 (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Angiewalter37. Based on Wikipedia's standards, this page more than meets the requirements and, in my opinion, I have not seen a reasonable, logical, policy-based argument put forth that is to the contrary. There are more than enough independent and reliable sources, in my opinion, many of which are mentioned above. As for notability, beyond the aforementioned independent and reliable sources (which I think clearly qualify the article based on Wikipedia's standards), I think endorsement from a figure such as Kevin O'Leary only further strengthens the notability argument. I respectfully disagree with the above users who are calling for this article to be deleted. CatDadoftheYear (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * BEing endorsed by someone isn't useful to establish notability. Good for their funding, maybe, but it doesn't equate to significant or in depth coverage. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It certainly strengthens a notability argument in the general sense of the word, do you not agree? As far as Wikipedia's standards, the article qualifies separately from that, which is exactly what I said and was the intent of my comment, which I think is clear. I'm not sure what you're alluding to in terms of funding. CatDadoftheYear (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep


 * 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.