Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verge (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 keep. One could even perhaps argue that it is more notable for its lack of usefulness. ansh 666 05:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Verge (cryptocurrency)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This cryptocurrency has suffered a serious attack in the last few days, limiting its usefulness and therefore notability. Normanland (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment' Usefulness≠notability. Notability is permanent. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  13:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - advertisement, see e.g. the "infographic" - violates WP:NOT Only 3 refs - 2 are to own website. The other - the Sun - is less factual than breathless. Never was notable as far as I can tell. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories[3] from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability as businesses frequently make use of these publications to increase their visibility.[4]"
 * Keep Have made a number of alterations, with a heavy focus on references - quality is decent (not great, I am aware - - let me know), but certainly better than self-referencing or Sun. The attack actually adds notability, because it has received such significant coverage, and I've added it in appropriately. Reference/WP:GNG seemed the primary reason this should be deleted, and I feel it no longer fails on those grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - the theft of a large amount of this otherwise non-notable certainly has made its claim to notability a bit less ridiculous, but still hasn't raised its visibility to where outsiders are noticing it. The key guideline here is WP:NCORP re: the trade journals used to reference the theft:
 * I'll just say the independence is not clear. BTW, I'll remove the advertising infographic from the article - I've just never seen anything on Wikipedia that reached that level of obnoxiousness in advertising.  For those who want to see this abomination see here. I'm not sure why, but reading about this whole thing keeps on reminding me of the old saying "Every fool aspired to be a knave." . Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to concede that some of the independence was not fully satisfied with the trade ones - I endeavored to only use them on points that were less promotional. There is an increasing awareness of non-bitcoin cryptos amongst the general population. Running off the first paragraph under significant coverage WP:CORPDEPTH I would say the article has met those requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 30th largest cryptocurrency - does not make it notable by any stretch. *All* of the sources are trade magazines (except Bloomberg which gives it just 1 paragraph).  I don't think any of these have established themselves as being reliable sources - they just look like a platform to advertise cryptocurrencies. BTW, the trade journal quote above comes from the section linked at WP:CORPDEPTH.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is not time-specific, and therefore this cryptocurrency remains notable. In addition, the attack has added in notability. SuperChris (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The so-called currency was never notable. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs major improvement but the subject is notable. It has a market capitalization of around 1 billion USD and due to it's partnership with MindGeek/Pornhub has been all over the news (Fortune, Forbes, etc.). The fact that Verge has suffered a serious attack recently is true but doesn't affect its notability. If Bank of America gets robbed, do we consider deleting their Wikipedia article as a consequence?  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 14:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on GNG principles, since we don't seem to have any CC-specific notability guidelines at the moment(?) - sufficient coverage seems to be there, based on the URL dump just made on the page (which BTW is an abomination in the article, and I have moved it onto the article page). Nominator rationale is a non-starter; we are not advocating this thing, merely presenting information about it. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:07, 22 April 2018 (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.