Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StableCoin


 * 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. Other matters discussed here are not relevant to the clear consensus that this does not (yet) meet Wikipedia's notability threshold. JohnCD (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

StableCoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another altcoin article. Reads like a WP:PROMO in addition to failing WP:GNG due to lack of sources. Citation Needed &#x007C;  Talk  20:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This is great...an AfD with the start of it saying "Another alcoin article" from the creator of Dogecoin. I love to see how impartial you can be.  Much hate, no value Huey2323 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference is though, Dogecoin is clearly notable, due to the multiple nontrivial mentions in reliable sources (even if it is as a joke). Maybe we should compare? Stablecoin vs Dogecoin. Not that this is relevant, of course (WP:OTHERSTUFF). If you want to make an actual accusation of WP:COI based on that, then feel free, otherwise please stop saying the same thing over and over (although, even if the original poster did have COI, that wouldnt affect the people voting delete). Benboy00 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, the article creator seems to be a WP:SPA with his/her only edits on one article that he created. Citation Needed  &#x007C;  Talk  21:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete Both of those references are press releases by Stablecoin. Stablecoin has re-started very recently, and this page is no doubt part of their "awareness campaign". They desperately need exposure (because the more people that are interested, the higher the price will be), and they seem pretty desperate to keep the price high. Also, there doesnt seem to be any news. The problem with things like this is that when theyre starting up, its pretty much a pyramid/ponzi scheme. It rewards early investors to the point that using it as a currency would be silly. The reason i think this should be deleted, though, is because its not notable (yet?) and is clearly promotional. Benboy00 (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The source just added by a different SPA is also a press release from Stablecoin. Benboy00 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am declaring my neutrality in this discussion due to me being a regular of /g/ and /pol/, which happens to be main hotspots for discussion regarding this specific coin. I've also made a statement on a StableCoin general on 4chan (listed here at http://i.imgur.com/nkzQSGZ.png, because 4chan is blacklisted) explaining the issues that the article currently faces. Citation Needed  &#x007C;  Talk  22:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a local source from a NBC affiliate in Virginia that talks about the coin, but this won't be enough. Either way, here's the source: http://www.wsls.com/story/24227113/innovative-bitcoin-alternative-stablecoin-posts-strong-gains-in-return Citation Needed  &#x007C;  Talk  23:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Martin 4 5 1  23:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thats from here, which is a press release. I'm not sure if we can rly count that as a reliable source, although maybe since the local news service reposted it, it might count (not sure of the exact rules on that). Benboy00 (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Martin 4 5 1  23:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article reads like an advertisement. SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am, along with others, actively changing the page due to the direction of the text in the article. When the page was first created it did sound like a promotional page.  I have removed a lot of wording that would make it look that way.  I am continuing to pull sources and other information from the developer to expand on the history and revisions of the topic.  I will continue to update as the information comes in. Huey2323 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment As it stands, the entirety of the section "mixing service" is a copyvio from here. The problem with all these sites is that none of them count as a reliable source under WP:RELIABLE. This is, as stated before, "just another altcoin article". Bitcoin is notable because it has a whole heap of news coverage (and some serious adoption). Coinye is notable because it has a load of news coverage. This, however, does not have coverage in reliable independent sources. Of the current 8 sources: 3 are forums, 1 is a blogspot page, 3 are crypto-currency specialist websites, and the last is a press release website. Unless this changes, the page is unlikely to remain. Benboy00 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Therefore, from your reasoning, in order to be "relevant" the "news" has to cover it? That doesn't seem to be the way to determine relevancy due to the slant of popular new organizations.  As I stated before, I will be updating the page along with references to make it less than promotional.  You are wrong about who copied from where...The mixing information was copied from here  which is directly from the developer. Huey2323 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not his reasoning, is the standard Wikipedia policy: WP:GNG. Smite-Meister (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter where it was copied from unless that source had a compatible CCP License (which it doesn't). Copying verbatim is not allowed. Please see WP:COPYPASTE. Also, as smite-meister says, WP:GNG is wikipedia policy, and it does make sense. There are also several other policies that this page probably fails, like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Benboy00 (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability. Refs provided are forums and marketing/press release sites and not RS coverage. A search revealed no significant RS coverage. As mentioned above, article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Utter failure of GNG. Sources are blogs or promotional press releases. Joint work of several SPA authors. I only wish that there was a faster way to delete articles like this. Smite-Meister (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is, but since AfD was started, it's probably best to finish it instead of WP:SPEEDY. However, WP:SNOWBALL may apply. Benboy00 (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: StableCoin looks as if it has potential, but it still doesn't pass the GNG. Perhaps in the future. Tractor Tyres (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No independent coverage in reliable sources. This reads like the articles for non-notable businesses that get deleted all the time. I suspect it was written with a similar promotional purpose in mind. Lagrange613 01:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment This looks like a WP:SNOWBALL. Any admins want to delete? Benboy00 (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Review Article has been improved and its sources as well, if you think it should be rewritten just rewrite it not delete. --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 09:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, sources have not actually been improved. Since I listed the sources and why they are not suitable (8th Jan), nothing has been added. The people here don't seem to think the article should be rewritten (certainly I dont), we think it should be deleted. Benboy00 (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, you have created such a rapport with the 4chan community, they seem to think that your suggestion to delete this page is highly regarded. In your previous post you recommend that it be deleted but it seems that you have an agenda (http://i.imgur.com/nkzQSGZ.png).  I have updated the page to not be promotional but only facts that haven't reported by multiple people (including the actual developer).  If people still think that it needs changed, please let me know.
 * Comment First of all, please sign your posts (4~'s). Next, thats not me, thats the nominator. Your link doesnt really show that he has an agenda. It shows that he's following wikipedia policy. The thing you dont seem to understand is that we dont think this article could necessarily be improved, we think it shouldnt exist in any form (at least with this title). You cannot make a subject more notable by editing wikipedia. There is nothing you can do to this article to change our minds unless you can find reliable sources for it (that satisfy WP:GNG). This has nothing to do with 4chan (I dont think I've even visited 4chan in the past few years) and I would be surprised if many of the people responding here have even seen that thread. Just because people disagree with you, doesnt mean they have an agenda, and thats actually quite a serious accusation. Since that link clearly doesnt show an agenda, do you have any other evidence? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, I uploaded that myself to declare myself neutral in this discussion because I do have a potential WP:COI with this coin due to me visiting /g/ regularly (apparently, you visit /g/ too, so we both have 'em). Secondly, my nomination doesn't count as a vote or anything like that, except to bring to attention possible concerns and problems with the article. Thirdly, the consensus seems to be plenty for deletion regardless of any "agenda" because so far the article has not been improved according to the eyes of the community. You won't change any minds by accusing me of having an agenda, but you can change minds if there is massive improvement. Citation Needed  &#x007C;  Talk  22:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Subject fails notability. Did not find mention in any reliable sources in my Google searches of books, newspapers, academic journals/sources, or in the first 50 search results returned by Google's web search. I tried verifying reliability of cited sources within the article, and all failed to meet WP:RS; they were not close calls, and were so far from being reliable that I removed the citations and cited claims. Without any reliable sources to work from, the article cannot be improved. Please post any reliable sources on the topic if you find them. --Agyle (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've struggled hard to find notability and failed... is clearly affiliated with stablecoin and trying to spam wikipedia. VinceSamios (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no close connections to StableCoin nor have I even spoken with the developer. I am not trying to spam wikipedia, just trying to ensure that the information about cryptocurrency is accurate. Huey2323 (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note Added a credible resource for news with a comment about the security and encryption of the coin Huey2323 (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The only mention of stablecoin in that article is "Anoncoin claims to be more anonymous (obviously) and Stablecoin to have "military-grade" encryption." Clearly a passing reference. Clearly impossible to use to establish notability. Benboy00 (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Still not notable. Lagrange613 15:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is still a reference, nonetheless, from a reliable source Huey2323 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See the general notability guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention". Lagrange613 16:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read and understand. Please see the above note, it does not claim notability, just a reference. Huey2323 (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, it isnt relevant to his AfD discussion. Please only post relevant information and discussion. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, thank you, for obscuring the reason for this AfD discussion. I mentioned that I would be updating and making the page informative and less like a promotion.  With the help of Agyle it seems to be there.  Now, in reference to the Note above, I believe that it is very relevant to the discussion as it shows improvements to the article in this AfD.   Huey2323 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Another pretty serious allegation. The reason most people are saying delete is an utter failure of notability. This subject is, to most of the people here, not notable, and this is likely going to be the opinion of the closing admin. This argument is what you need to rebut. Notability alone is grounds to delete this article. Posting things not related to this is counter productive. Benboy00 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain "Posting things not related to this is counter productive" Huey2323 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting things not related to the notability of the subject is counter productive as it leads people to believe that you accept that the article isn't notable, and are trying to paper over that. If you dont address the notability problem, your argument is irrelevant. It also means that people with this page on their watchlist have to check back for irrelevant material, which is annoying. Benboy00 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So, a Note about upgrading the article to conform more towards guidelines "annoys" you? WP:GNG was not the only thing that the original poster had a concern with.  It was also WP:PROMO.  I am beginning to question your "neutrality" to this AfD.  Huey2323 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is a crucial standard by which topics are judged to belong in the encyclopedia or not. It is important for upholding all three core content policies. The nominator also noted that the content seems promotional, which puts the article in conflict with one of those policies, namely that Wikipedia be written from a neutral point of view. While this issue speaks to the article's quality, addressing it does not make the topic notable, which again is necessary for inclusion. You're new here, and it's fine that you're not yet familiar with these policies and guidelines. But until you are, please don't question others' motives. Assuming good faith and refraining from personal attacks are also cornerstones of Wikipedia. Lagrange613 18:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood, I was just making a note that I was continuing to upgrade the article to make it less WP:PROMO. I get thwarted at every turn to upgrade and change the article by Benboy00 and it seems odd that his campaign is all criticism.  I have stated that I have no contact or close ties with the developer of the software and I am editing from a neutral point of view.  With that being said, I do not think anything in the article can be refuted and deemed WP:PROMO at this point.  Huey2323 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any edits recently to the page, so I'm not sure what you mean by "thwarted". It's great that you want to help wikipedia, but the problem is that there isn't much point in trying to improve the article if its going to be deleted anyway. Your efforts would be better spent looking for reliable sources to help stop the deletion of this page. Benboy00 (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of trying to sit back and criticize, you may want to attempt to help people try and get accustomed to the community. Not only did Agyle make his suggestions, but also edited the page in a way to clear up any issues he had with it.  The only contribution you have made is to the AfD, which is not very welcoming.  Huey2323 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment Since it has now been 7 days, it seems likely that this AfD will be closed (presumably as delete, although i probably count as biased (because of my delete vote)). If anyone has any more keep arguments, or can find any more sources, now is probably the time to show that. Benboy00 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC) ANI notice: I've started a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Huey's behavior and bad faith accusations. Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Citation Needed  &#x007C;  Talk  23:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to note that the original AfD creator, Citation Needed, is the creator of a similar page Dogecoin. I am not sure if this is a WP:COI since there where no edits from him to the main article.  Although, this section would indicate that he has direct ties to marketing another altcoin. Huey2323 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok, again, this is a serious accusation. If you truly believe that he has WP:COI, and can give some sort of evidence for this, then feel free to do so. However, creating an article on a similar topic is NOT evidence for a COI. If you look at the way he started that article, you would see that it was supported with sources from the very beginning. This article was not. As a WP:SPA, you are accusing an established non-SPA editor of COI. I understand that you are new, but surely you can see why this is not the smartest thing to do, especially when there is no actual evidence. User:Citation Needed has conducted himself very well in this AfD, and you have made several accusations against others. Dogecoin is notable. StableCoin is seemingly not. Dogecoin has several reliable sources. Stablecoin does not. I already made this clear here. Please stop with these baseless accusations, or you may be sanctioned. Benboy00 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG.  Mini  apolis  00:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wait until this gets coverage in books or academic journals, or until the news sources are treating it as an established subject, as something whose existence is assumed.  Look at Bitcoin: news sources don't necessarily assume that people know what it is, but their stories about it are generally "Here's what happened regarding Bitcoin, a computerised currency" rather than "Someone just invented a computerised currency, Bitcoin".  At the moment, everything out there is either the really basic news stuff — we need sources that are independent of their subject, including chronologically, so that we won't be the newspaper — or things like forums and YouTube videos.  Nothing solid on which a proper encyclopedia article can be written.  Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. A few other cryptocurrencies meet notability standards, but StableCoin has no significant coverage in reliable sources. Only mentioned in passing at most. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 03:31, 15 January 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.