Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PotCoin


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

PotCoin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

notability not established, all sources are from launch or they are primary, or they violate WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND. seems like just a one-time event, it is now discontinued and new sources will not appear. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Takes a lot more than this to rise from the mundane morass of cryptocurrency claimants. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: It has received some coverage, which goes beyond its launch and sponsoring one of Dennis Rodman's trips. I also found some reliable sources which talk about it:, , , , , , and . There's also a book about it. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG.  ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The book self-published (CreateSpace), it cannot be cited. CryptoNinjas and Bitcoinist are blogs, and they not independent sources, and per consensus established on WP:RSN, a crypto-focused media like Bitcoin Magazine or Coindesk is not citable. CryptoNinjas has articles that are worse than the ones written by Aaron van Wirdum for Bitcoin Magazine (which is not allowed), so I don't think CryptoNinjas can be cited. CryptoNinjas invites you to contact them for advertising, it doesn't specify whether they would let you publish any piece, but I think it would be reasonable that they'd do that. Bitcoinist is pay-to-publish, it cannot be cited. You keep posting poor sources, and you always vote keep on cryptocurrency deletion discussions that I have started. I have repeatedly challenged you, and you have ignored me in e.g. AfD discussions like Bitcoin faucet, Bithumb, Coins.ph (in which I notified you about the high bar for sources of cryptocurrency articles). In the discussion of BitPesa, I have not challenged you (as I should have), but in that discussion you have admitted a source was not reliable (Disrupt Afrika), while at the same time posting a link to bitcoin.com, which is not independent at all (controlled by Roger Ver) and this is after I notified you that even CoinDesk cannot be cited. How can it be that you keep posting bad sources, and that you never defend them when challenged? --Ysangkok (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. To the extent that a notability case can be made, it's as a marketing stunt . The article would need a more-or-less complete rewrite in order to bring it in line with the (few) reliable sources, rather than the PR from inside the bubble. At most, this topic merits a brief paragraph in another article; I'd potentially support a redirect if a good target were proposed, but nothing in this article as it exists merits preservation by merging. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT, WP:RS, and WP:MILL. Much of the text is about block-chain currency generically. If you took out all the extraneous footnotes and text, there were be nothing left but a short description. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2020 (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.