Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terracoin


 * 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. L Faraone  06:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Terracoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Multiple searches including Google News did not provide any substantial news coverage aside from another minor mention. This probably isn't something that would receive that much widespread coverage and maybe only in that market industry but I haven't found anything good aside from blogs (Blogspot, market blogs, etc.). They've received small coverage because of the market they're in (cryptocurrency) and being compared to Bitcoin. Not much farther than that. No prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister   talk  23:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nonexistant references beyond minor mentions, not notable. What's Wikipedia's policy towards "Buy this product here!"-type links like the ones in the Major markets section anyway? Smite-Meister (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - cryptocurrency article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search revealed incidental mentions, blogs and forums, but no RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 11:50, 3 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.