Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primecoin (6th nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. But trending towards keep based on the sources provided at the end.  Sandstein  10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Primecoin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionably notable cryptocurrency. Most of the sources are cryptocurrency "news" sites, and the more reliable sources are not significant coverage of Primecoin.

This article was AfD'd a number of times in 2014; at this time, it was a fairly popular alt-coin. This lead to a lot of arguments about how fast the currency was growing and that it was the 9th most popular crypto-currency in terms of market cap. Today, the currency is ranked 329 according to coinmarketcap.com. Hopefully now, a few years later, we can discuss notability without getting caught up in temporary hype. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the notability statements, since it was once notable. However, the article still seems very promotional-ish and the sources are not the greatest. A rewrite would help this article out, but judging by the lack of significant non-news and non-secondary sources, probably not. As a result, I say Weak Delete. DudeTheNinja ( speak to me &#124; spy on me ) 11:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - refs are passing mentions or cryptocurrency blogs, which don't confer wider notability (particularly Coindesk, which never saw a hype it didn't like). It turns out a zillion cites to bitcoin blogs and a few passing mentions in RSes don't cut it for notability. And I'm really not convinced it ever was notable - its "notability" in RSes seems to have been one short period of PrimeCoin miners spamming Digital Ocean with signups. This single incident is not enough to sustain an entire detailed article on the intricacies of PrimeCoin - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - In my review, only The Register refs (1, 2) and the Data Center Knowledge ref demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and are potentially reliable. True, these articles were spurred by events, and perhaps they would not have otherwise covered this alt-coin in such detail, but FWIW there appears to be three separate incidents covered - Digital Ocean spamming (June 2013), unprecedented cloud server buy-up (Dec 2013), and other malware-based mining (Jan 2014).
 * That said, is The Register reliable? A quick review of Reliable Sources Noticeboard is inconclusive in this context. I'd be interested in others' take on whether this source can be used to demonstrate notability, and whether cryptocurrency notability demands multiple RS. Pegnawl (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Looking over the extensive history of prior AfDs (one of which I see I closed, but have long forgotten about), I see some arguments for keeping that are reasonable even by today's stricter standards (and evolving attitudes about cryptocurrencies). If this was an isolated AfD, I suspect I'd close this as delete without too much hesitation. But, given the history, and the non-committal-ness of several of the deletion arguments, I think it's reasonable to get some more eyes on this.
 * delete No significant coverage in RS. Retimuko (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Quoting a "weak keep" from the first AFD: "That being said, if Primecoin fails to become/stay widely notable then this should be revisited." Bloomberg has dedicated cryptocurrency coverage, Washington Post recently published an article on stablecoins (most aren't individually notable), New York Times recently wrote about a struggling blockchain startup (which is still questionably notable and doesn't currently have an article.) The Register and the Data Center Knowledge (which is a specialist new source on date centers) sources from 2013 and 2014 are pretty lame in comparison to what some altcoins get today. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Primecoin participants who have been active in the past year:, , , , , , , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Primecoin (2nd nomination) participants:, , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Primecoin (3rd nomination) participants:, , , , and . Cunard (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Primecoin (4th nomination) participants:, and.


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Primecoin (5th nomination) participants:, , , and . Cunard (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was pinged.  The fact of 5 previous AFDs -> speedy keep is appropriate.  We do not need to re-discuss anything like this.  In the last AFD I !voted "Keep".  There was coverage then and before.  Once notable, always notable.  Any issue of promotion can and should be dealt with by editing.  The article has been tagged-bombed perhaps excessively on some matters, for example "non-primary source needed" tag in lede, on assertion that "The Primecoin source code is copyrighted by a person or group called “Primecoin Developers”, and distributed under a conditional MIT/X11 software license.[5]" is perhaps unfair.  Presumably one can see the copyright statement and software license type in the source code.  If there is no doubt that the source code states what it states, that negative tagging should be removed. --Doncram (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You really need to bring actual WP:RSes to the party - David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't say, there exists reasonable alternative to deletion of redirecting/merging to a section in a list-article of bitcoins. In some of the discussion, it was asserted that Primecoin had only the 15th largest capitalization of bitcoins. There should be a List of bitcoins or whatever, perhaps as a section in main article about these (Bitcoin?).


 * About sources, it is my impression that sources have been brought to the table. In one of the previous AFDs, on 25 March 2014, Agyle provided the following table about Primecoin and others:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! ! The New York Times ! The Wall Street Journal ! Forbes ! The Guardian
 * Auroracoin
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Bitcoin
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Coinye
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Dogecoin
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Litecoin
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Mastercoin
 * 
 * 
 * Namecoin
 * 
 * Peercoin
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Primecoin
 * 
 * 
 * Ripple
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * }
 * If there is not already a table of bitcoins in any mainspace place, it can/should be created. It is possible to link/redirect to a specific row, using "id=LABEL" feature within the table to set an anchor, then linking to ARTICLE . --Doncram (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally, if it isn't notable enough for an article, it won't be notable enough to include in the section of another article. There is a list of Cryptocurrencies included the the template Template:Cryptocurrencies. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your Forbes entry for Primecoin is a contributor blog, not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And another one (The Guardian) is only a brief mentioning (one small paragraph) in a shallow overview of nine. Retimuko (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To qualify the results of the previous AfDs: I don't think the previous discussions reflect consensus to keep. Only the 4th and 5th AfDs had such strong keep support, and that was for primarily procedural reasons: the article was, rather inappropriately, nominated for deletion many times in a row. In contrast, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd AfD had a ton of debate, and were closed as no consensus. A few years later, we should definitely reconsider arguments about RSes, but it seems inappropriate to rely on the outcomes of the previous AfDs to reflect past consensus. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * Primecoin
 * 
 * 
 * Ripple
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * }
 * If there is not already a table of bitcoins in any mainspace place, it can/should be created. It is possible to link/redirect to a specific row, using "id=LABEL" feature within the table to set an anchor, then linking to ARTICLE . --Doncram (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally, if it isn't notable enough for an article, it won't be notable enough to include in the section of another article. There is a list of Cryptocurrencies included the the template Template:Cryptocurrencies. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your Forbes entry for Primecoin is a contributor blog, not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And another one (The Guardian) is only a brief mentioning (one small paragraph) in a shallow overview of nine. Retimuko (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To qualify the results of the previous AfDs: I don't think the previous discussions reflect consensus to keep. Only the 4th and 5th AfDs had such strong keep support, and that was for primarily procedural reasons: the article was, rather inappropriately, nominated for deletion many times in a row. In contrast, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd AfD had a ton of debate, and were closed as no consensus. A few years later, we should definitely reconsider arguments about RSes, but it seems inappropriate to rely on the outcomes of the previous AfDs to reflect past consensus. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is not already a table of bitcoins in any mainspace place, it can/should be created. It is possible to link/redirect to a specific row, using "id=LABEL" feature within the table to set an anchor, then linking to ARTICLE . --Doncram (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally, if it isn't notable enough for an article, it won't be notable enough to include in the section of another article. There is a list of Cryptocurrencies included the the template Template:Cryptocurrencies. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your Forbes entry for Primecoin is a contributor blog, not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And another one (The Guardian) is only a brief mentioning (one small paragraph) in a shallow overview of nine. Retimuko (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To qualify the results of the previous AfDs: I don't think the previous discussions reflect consensus to keep. Only the 4th and 5th AfDs had such strong keep support, and that was for primarily procedural reasons: the article was, rather inappropriately, nominated for deletion many times in a row. In contrast, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd AfD had a ton of debate, and were closed as no consensus. A few years later, we should definitely reconsider arguments about RSes, but it seems inappropriate to rely on the outcomes of the previous AfDs to reflect past consensus. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Current rank on coinmarketcap compared to old could be misleading, as there could be more cryptocurrencies now. Forbes mentions Primecoin in a recent article (2018), which seems to be mainly about Sunny King (pseudonym) the coins creator. Proof-Of-Stake Guru Sunny King: "Blockchain Is Easy - We Just Need To Use It Like A Database". Jonpatterns (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a contributor blog - not a "Forbes article" as such - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see thanks for pointing out the distinction. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a perennial problem with Forbes stuff - if it says "Forbes staff" it's a probably-RS WP:NEWSBLOG, and if it says "From the print edition it definitely passes RS - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I removed all the dubious sourcing in this edit. There are now two minor RSes and one Bitcoin blog, which may or may not count as an RS for facts, if not notability (WP:RSN has noted just recently that bitcoin blogs are no good as evidence of notability) - David Gerard (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Got pinged into this conversation. The sourcing is sparse and 2/3 deals with traffic shutting down servers rather than the actual subject.Citing (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added new sources, including Forbes. Please review the article now. Rezy (talk &#124; contribs) 02:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, those were all crypto rags, not reliable sources. Forbes was a contributor blog post. Retimuko (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Primecoin was formerly a major cryptocurrencies which has received significant coverage from mainstream sources. The Register, CoinDesk, Bitcoin Magazine and Ars Technica are reliable secondary sources. Valoem talk contrib 08:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your mainstream sources are passing mentions, and crypto blogs are no good for establishing notability - in particular, the Bitcoin Magazine article is from the period when it was pretty much Vitalik's blog - David Gerard (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Ars Technica article is the very definition of a passing mention. The article is actually about malware. Exactly one sentence mentions that the malware was mining Primecoin. Pburka (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as only having passing mentions in independent sources and a butt-load of self-interested coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only significant coverage in reliable sources was one Register article, which was as much about Digital Ocean as it was Primecoin. The previous AfDs were either no consensus or procedural keeps. The coin's notability has only decreased since the first AfD, as there's no evidence over that last five years that it will have any lasting impact. Pburka (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources identified by Cunard below. Pburka (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete sources that are actually reliable don't have much in the way of in-depth coverage about the coin, except maybe The Register articles, which are mainly about shutting down DigitalOcean than about the coin. (what I mean by actually reliable: I see no indication that DataCenterKnowledge.com is reliable, or that an op-ed in bitcoin magazine which itself has no indication of editorial control (appears to be blog per David Gerard) is reliable, and Forbes source is unreliable Forbes contributor). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bitcoin Magazine is more of an edited magazine these days (editor, paid journalists) - though crypto sites are still really bad as indicators of "notability", given a huge tendency to write extensive articles on things that don't exist and never turn out to exist. But that's one for WP:RSN :-) - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete edits made since my initial comment have made clear that this article fails WP:GNG. Pegnawl (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete yet again per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Citations are from 2013 and there's nothing more recent? The Clark and Miller citations give only passing mention.  The Buterin citation is specific to the subject but it's also back from 2013 and in a niche publication.  One of the first considerations that new editors are asked to make before writing a new article is their ease in finding reliable sources. If a subject is notable enough for inclusion those sources should not be hard to find. Blue Riband► 00:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book notes: "11.5 Primecoin Primecoin (XMP) was launched in 2013. The main innovation introduced by Primecoin is that its proof-of-work function produces somewhat useful scientific results (Buterin, 2013f). This contrasts with most proof-of-work functions, such as SHA256 or scrypt, whose results do not have any value except to secure the blockchain. Primecoin's proof-of-work function searches for chains of prime numbers, known as Cunningham chains. The chains of primes found through proof-of-work could help researchers understand the distribution of prime numbers, which in turn could lead to advances in other scientific disciplines such as physics, or could have useful applications still unknown. Practical proof-of-work functions must have two properties: [the two properties]  The SHA256 hash function meets both properties, but it has been notoriously difficult to find scientific problems which can be adapted to these properties. Primecoin is the first proposal of a scientific problem that meets both requirements. Verification of a (relatively small) prime number is efficient on current hardware. Verification of chains of primes is similarly efficient. The length of the prime chains is used to adjust the difficulty. The only problem is that the length of a prime chain is a discrete value whose difficulty increases exponentially. Primecoin developers solved this problem, using a fractional chain length (King, 2013). Primecoin targets a block generation period of one minute, with a difficulty adjustment after every block. The block reward is not a fixed number of coins, as in Bitcoin, but it is a function of the difficulty: blockreward = 999/difficulty2. It can be shown that this self-adjusting block reward will lead to a fixed monetary supply (Buterin, 2013f). Primecoin could be a first step towards creating proof-of-work functions that would solve useful problems. See King (2013) for the specification of Primecoin's proof-of-work function and Buterin (2013f) for an overview of the project." <li> The article notes: "3.5. The Primecoin digital currency The Primecoin (XPM) was launched in 2013. It is based on a proof-of-work algorithm that searches for chains of prime numbers (Cunningham and bi-twin chains). The Primecoin blockchain contains these prime numbers, providing both a public ledger of the transactions and a public ledger of the obtained useful scientific results. Most proof-of-work functions provide results useful only for securing the blockchain. In contrast with those cases, in the Primecoin's case, the results obtained through the proof-of-work function have also a scientific value. The chains of prime numbers found by the proof-of-work algorithm help researchers in understanding the distribution of prime numbers, which are extremely important in various scientific domains. The proof-of-work functions must mandatory be efficiently verifiable and the verification should be possible through means of fast computations. In addition, these functions' difficulty should be easily adjustable, as miners enter or leave the network. The Primecoin's proof-of-work function satisfies both of the above mentioned requirements. The verification of the prime numbers or of the chains of prime numbers is sufficiently efficient. By adjusting the length of chains of prime numbers, one can change the difficulty of the mining process. The length of a chain of prime numbers is a discrete value and therefore the difficulty will increase exponentially. This problem has been solved by the Primecoin developers using a fractional chain length [3]."</li> <li> The book notes: "Primecoin As of 2015, the only proof-of-useful work system deployed in practice is Primecoin. The challenge in Primecoin is to find a Cunningham chain of prime numbers. A Cunningham chain is a sequence of k prime numbers p1, p2, ..., pk such that pi = 2pi–1 + 1 for each number in the chain. That is, you take a prime number, double it and add one to get another prime number, and continue until you get a composite number. The sequence 2, 5, 11, 23, 47 is a Cunningham chain of length 5. ... ... Indeed, this puzzle has been in use for Primecoin for almost 2 years and has produced the largest-known primes in Cunningham chains for many values of k. Primecoin has since expanded to include additional, similar types of prime chains in its proof of work, including 'second kind' Cunningham chains in which pi = 2pi–1 – 1."</li> <li> The book notes: "Primecoin Primecoin was announced in July 2013. Its proof-of-work algorithm searches for prime numbers, computing Cunningham and bi-twin prime chains. Prime numbers are useful in a variety of scientific disciplines. The Primecoin blockchain contains the discovered prime numbers, thereby producing a public record of scientific discovery in parallel to the public ledger of transactions.<ul><li>Block generation: 1 minute</li><li>Total currency: No limit</li><li>Consensus algorithm: Proof of work with prime number chain discovery</li><li>Market capitalization: $1.3 million in mid-2014</li></ul>"</li> <li> The article notes: "Primecoin What it is The puzzle that bitcoin miners solve is completely arbitrary and takes a long time and a lot of computing power. But it doesn’t have any application beyond verifying bitcoin transactions. Primecoin is an altcoin that attempts to redirect this energy into useful work. Instead of performing an arbitrary calculation, miners in the primecoin network search for sequences of prime numbers called Cunningham chains. Who started it Like bitcoin, primecoin was created by an anonymous hacker who goes by the name Sunny King. (He also co-founded another altcoin called peercoin.) Exchange rate  1 primecoin = $0.77"</li> <li> The article notes: "Primecoin A cryptocurrency like bitcoin, primecoin differs at its core because it uses a totally separate mathematical basis for mining. Instead of relying on bitcoin’s “Hashcash” algorithm, primecoin finds long Cunningham chains – a certain sequence of prime numbers named after the mathematician AJC Cunningham – to build value into the currency. Unlike bitcoin, primecoin’s mining difficulty increases slightly with each new coin created, scaling more evenly than bitcoin’s bigger shift in mining difficulty every 2016 blocks."</li> <li> The article notes: "Two other cryptocurrencies that may prove relevant for the issues within this paper are Litecoin and Primecoin. ... Primecoin also has a different protocol for proving the validity of transactions. Primecoin validates its transactions by finding long chains of prime numbers, known as Cunningham chains. It also has the advantage of generating blocks faster than Bitcoin. Both alternative cryptocurrencies may have Blockchain protocols that could potentially benefit firms trying to use Blockchain for their endeavors more than the Bitcoin protocols."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Primecoin to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Keep per sources provided by Cunard. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG per sources provided by . Balkywrest (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keepas has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified above by Cunard, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard. If possible, prevent AfD noms on this article for the next 6-8 months. <b style="color:#3399FF">Redditaddict69</b> <sup style="color:#339900">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(contribs)  00:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's actually been OK - last AFD was four years ago, and the best thing for this article is if someone could put all these new sources into the article - David Gerard (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard, who's references are now listed in the References section of the article, with thanks. Levivich (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.