Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quark (cryptocurrency)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Quark (cryptocurrency)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One mention in The Guardian and some chit-chat on a BitCoin forum is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete only reliable source coverage is in a list along with a bunch of other cryptocurrencies, not notable. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I'm not referring to the chit-chat, I'm referring to the top post.


 * In case you've not been into altcoins, you'll see that most of them don't have a website. They all start in the altcoin subfourm. All their announcement is made via the top post. It's updated regularly to reflect changes by the coin developers.


 * The existence, price etc... of the coin can be proved from the (popular) exchanges. I'll try to get the specifications in the main website, or at least it'll refer to the thread. I hope it'll be enough. DE logics (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Just for context: I PRODded it, and Clarkcj12 has shunted my PROD reason into the AfD. I can't find multiple reliable sources: the Guardian is a reliable source, but we need multiple reliable sources. Bitcointalk is not a reliable source. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, about that. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, in that case I'd like to repeat what I said before in the Quark talk page, please respond to all of them before any more prods. --


 * The exchanges in which they're listed are very popular. See their ranking. You can also see http://coinmarketcap.com, this's also a popular website.


 * I hope you don't reject RFC references for the same reason. Is it that news articles is the only thing you can refer to? That way most technical (especially math) articles must be wiped from wiki.
 * Now it's even supported by https://coinpayments.net DE logics (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines don't give any weight to coinpayments.net or coinmarketcap.com or BitCoin exchanges. You got any reliable sources? —Tom Morris (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * How about http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/04/idUSnHUGdqhp+70+ONE20131204, http://www.freitag.de/autoren/the-babyshambler/beenden-wir-die-macht-der-banken? DE logics (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are reliable sources. The Reuters link is actually a press release. The freitag.de link is to a community blog section content written by a pseudoynmous user called The Babyshambler—no editorial oversight means this is a questionable source. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form""


 * "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"


 * Cryptsy -- rank 20,878
 * bter.com -- rank 35,500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DE logics (talk • contribs) 09:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How does Alexa rank convey "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? YouTube is number three on Alexa but that doesn't mean it's a reliable source. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're looking forwards towards the existence of the coin, then this coin is traded in the highest volumes in these exchanges which hundreds and thousands of people trust; cause of the trading platform's popularity, it's accuracy and fact-checking (or details the price of the cryptocurrency) is proved.


 * Unlike Youtube, this does not show any opinion by people; this's showing facts -- the current price of the coin and it proves it's existence.


 * If Wikipedia does not accept these sites are reliable source, then why is tools.ietf.org taken as a reliable source? Or in that case, any University or news website? If the website does not have sufficient negative reviews by people over the Internet, it's well suited to be a source. Cause 'accuracy' and 'fact-checking' is determined by what people think about the credibility of the website. DE logics (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Another non-notable cryptocurrency, meaningless references, article consists mostly of hype and a few links to exchanges to help drive the bubble. Smite-Meister (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Any reason why I should not accuse you of owning a lot of pre-mined Bitcoins (and possibly expensive mining hardware) and trying to pump Bitcoin prices by provoking people to sell the alts to buy bits?
 * Your arguments are pretty much useless in context of this article anyway.

DE logics (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith is a Wikipedia policy. I have all of about $5 USD in Bitcoin. Can you provide some reliable sources? —Tom Morris (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're actually saying this to me, instead of Smite-Meister. Any particular reason? DE logics (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search reveals forum posts and blogs, and incidental mentions in a few reliable sources, but no significant RS coverage, needed to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This being discussed above.


 * Ok, but I got more sources.


 * http://www.businessinsider.com.au/explosion-of-bitcoin-clones-2013-12, http://www.eweek.com/cloud/slideshows/bitcoin-has-company-on-cryptocurrency-stage.html/, http://actualidad.rt.com/economia/view/113241-alternativas-bitcoin-monedas, http://www.internethaber.com/bu-bitcoinleri-biliyor-musunuz-613402h.htm, http://www.pb.pl/3454481,8073,bitcoin-alternatywa-dla-systemu-czy-tylko-inwestycja,


 * Many of these are repeats but they have editorial reviews. DE logics (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The first and last are cursory mentions. The eweek article has two sentences about Quark on a slideshow slide. The remaining two are translations of this Guardian article, which has the same two sentences about Quark, which in turn seem to be copied directly from the Quark homepage. To me this doesn't yet demonstrate notability. Smite-Meister (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But they do have editorial reviews, and that's good enough to satisfy the wiki criteria. Can you please quote the wiki guidelines which state such sources are not suited for inclusion. DE logics (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Guardian, at least, would be considered a reliable news source by most. However, the problem is this: "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention". Smite-Meister (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a passing mention in multiple source actually. But these sources in conjunction to the exchanges should be good enough. The exchange issue is being dealt above. Can you please put some thought on it? DE logics (talk) 03:38, 10 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.