Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timekoin


 * 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)

Timekoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

-- Please cite the unreliable sources, I noticed 6 of them at the beginning that lead to reliable and verifiable information. What level of missing significant coverage are you basing your opinion on? Knightmb (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's because there's no news coverage or even in-depth news coverage for that matter, such as tech and computing magazines. It's not that primary sources aren't acceptable, it's simply that without third-party news coverage, everything is based on the company's own webpages. Forum links are unacceptable and blog hosts like Blogger and Blogspot don't tend to be reliable because, although some of it may be true, it's not exactly a reputable source for an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister   talk  23:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - My first Google News search found nothing and subsequent searches failed to find anything else. Zero news coverage. Honestly, this is a good article and has some good information but it'd be nice to see some news coverage. No prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister   talk  23:57, 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)



I would bet that over 95% of the articles in wikipedia do not have or need some news link. Why should this article be any different? Why can't this article be in-depth if nothing else out there is? I think pulling the article would only hurt wikipedia and those looking for 3rd party information since all the search engines that point to the article would come up as an error. Either that or you'll get a crowd of people that just keep re-creating the article if it is gone, or simply created at another online encyclopedia? 96.33.255.92 (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not seem notable at all, all the references are blog posts or other nonsense. Smite-Meister (talk) 22:50, 1 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.