Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertcoin (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Renominating this three weeks after the previous AfD was disruptive. Please don't do anything like that again. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Vertcoin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Last nomination ended in a no consensus. Article fails WP:GNG and does not attempt to even assert notability. Citation Needed &#x007C;  Talk  03:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 *  Weak Strong keep with trout - Has moved from 20 to 17 in Market Cap since last AfD. A second AfD should have waited at least a few months since this whole area is rapidly changing. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Market Cap" is irrelevant toward Wikipedia's WP:GNG standard, which requires significant coverage from multiple independently-published reliable sources. Agyle (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Market Cap" could be a sign that many people are using the currency, therefore making it notable.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the number of people using it is also irrelevant toward Wikipedia's WP:GNG standard. We're not talking about Mirriam-Webster's definition of "notable" here, but about the term as described in Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Agyle (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up I thought there may be exceptions, where something is notable but does not have reliable sources. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are exceptions for certain types of topics not covered in reliable sources, or never previously written about at all; entertainers with cult followings, or astronomical bodies visible to the naked eye, for example. Cryptocurrencies do not fall into any of the existing exceptions. Agyle (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: The IBT source is good, but one brief source does not notability make. The only other things I could find were sources mentioned in the last nomination, namely the Daily Dot opinion piece and a few crypto blogs. Not enough to meet notability guidelines. Moswento talky 08:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A WP:TROUT to the nominator for a nomination just 2 1/2 weeks after the previous discussion closed; little has changed in sourcing and forcing a re-discussion so soon is a waste of other editors' time. The article does assert significance as being one of the larger market cap coins and as innovative in the use of an ASIC-resistant mining process. Sources found:
 * IBT article, already in the WP article
 * Vertcoin Rockets Despite Market Weakness, from Altcoin Press
 * Vertcoin Developer Paul Bradley Talks Zerocoin, ASIC Resistance, and More from cryptocoins news
 * Interview with creator of ASIC-proof Vertcoin from Follow The Coin
 * Vertcoin Most ‘Active’ Coin from cryptocoins news
 * Sources 1,2 and 5 are independent and in enough depth for a marginal pass for notability. Given recent press, this coin is likely to get more notable over time. Sources 3 and 4 are interviews and not independent, but could be used to help build background in the article. The article is sourced, but could use more secondary sources, perhaps from this list. A marginally notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability requires independent reliable sources. AltCoin Press looks like the self-published blog of a guy called Greg Matthews. CryptoCoinsNews looks more solid, until you read the T&Cs, which state "CryptoCoinsNews can post sponsored stories paid by any party." So, potentially, we still just have one independent reliable source. Moswento talky 21:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as per trout. Rainbow trout transparent.png Presumably nominated to ensure at least two cryptocurrencies are being nominated for deletion.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Does "as per trout" mean something, or is this a facetious post that should be ignored? Agyle (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the comment that mentions a trout. Two and a half weeks seems very soon to be renominating for deletion.  What may happen is this article gets deleted, then six months down the line it needs writing again.  However, waiting six months may give a better indication of whether it subject will ever gain 'notability'.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Only one RS with significant coverage, from IBT, in my opinion. Mark viking, innovation and "market cap" are not part of Wikipedia's WP:GNG criteria, and I don't consider altcoinpress.com, followthecoin.com, or cryptocoinsnews.com to meet WP:RS:
 * Altcoinpress is essentially a one-person blog (all front-page stories by Greg Matthews).
 * Cryptocoinsnews has very one-sided articles, dubious stories based on rumors, and will post ads as stories for money.
 * Followthecoin promotes specific cryptocurrencies in a way that casts doubt on its objectivity as an independent news organization.
 * ––Agyle (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I never claimed that innovation and "market cap" established notability, only that they were assertions of significance. On Wikipedia, these are different concepts. See for instance WP:A7 --Mark viking (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I thought you meant they were relevant to notability, or reasons to keep the article. Agyle (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutral (Changed from weak keep, then redirect) A few sources exist for the article, although it really is borderline. Failing a keep, I would recommend redirecting this page to the Cryptocurrency article, which gives some very limited coverage to the vertcoin. In light of more additional sources being found, I change my vote to neutral. I really do not have a strong opinon one way or another at this point Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Spirit of Eagle, please list reliable sources you found. Currently only one article is cited. Agyle (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lets just cut straight to the point: this is notable enough for inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure it deserves its own article. Preferably, I'd suggest merging this into a List of cryptocurrencies article, but that one was redirected per a January 2014 deletion discussion. A merge anywhere else would give vertcoin undue weight. There are only two real options: keep or delete. I'm uncomfortable voting delete as there are sources for it (specifically the IBT and a DailyDot article), so I don't see any other option besides a keep vote. If you can suggest a better solution, I would happily change my vote. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Spirit, I don't consider the Daily Dot piece reliable; its style is informal and non-neutral, like an editorial, and its URL contains "/opinion/", suggesting it's an opinion piece, which WP:RS says "are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
 * I agree keep & delete are the two main options, though deleting is potentially temporary, pending more significant coverage. I also just created Draft:Vertcoin as a place to work on a future article, based on the current version, in the event the live article is deleted. A few crypto articles incubated in Draft: namespace until they had enough reliable sources (e.g., Auroracoin, now live, and Draft:NXT, which is not). Agyle (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's good enough for me. I'm changing my vote to a redirect. (The cryptocurrency article already covers all of the verifiable information for the vertcoin anyways, so it would be usable to redirect there). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A slight problem with a redirect is that cryptocurrency's current standard for whether to include cryptocurrencies in that table is whether they meet Wikipedia notability criteria. There are various opinions on which should be included, and the current approach is designed in part to keep it from being overrun by non-notable alt coins. However, some info could be merged elsewhere in the article, if it really is a verifiably unique and innovative approach. Agyle (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The cryptocurency article, as it currently stands, contains information on the vertcoin. So long as it gets coverage within the article, I believe that a redirect from this article is justified. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate what Agyle said - if this article is deleted then Vertcoin will be removed from the 'table of cryptocurrencies' on the cryptocurrency article.  The table is the only coverage of Vertcoin on that article. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've changed my vote to weak delete to reflect this. If it gets removed from the table, then a redirect would be pointless. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment A 2014-04-24 BBC article contains a sidebar on Vertcoin and an enthusiast. Agyle (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong delete With one RS and a bunch of blogs and non-RS sources, it's most definitely not notable. It should've been deleted in the last discussion, there were more delete votes and most of the keep votes weren't at all based on Wikipedia policies. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Does not have significant coverage as per Wikipedia:GNG, is less significant than other cryptocurrencies which have already had their pages deleted, and this vote is currently being vote-bridgaded by members of the Vertcoin subreddit. see: (http://www.reddit.com/r/vertcoin/comments/244xve/lets_try_to_prevent_the_deletion_of_the_wikipedia/) --Bananaman321 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a comment, but they seem to be more concerned with finding reliable sources and editing the article to meet notability requirements than rigging this AfD. Someone may want to drop them a link to the vertcoin draft and give them an explanation for why this articles been nominated. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Who above voting keep are you accusing of vote rigging? I am familiar with all but one, and he has been around since 2010. I also have no problem whatsoever with any group of people whose goal is "providing better sources and writing it in a more neutral approach". After having reviewed other recent cryptocurrency AfDs, some of which went three or four times in a row without deletion, I am now certain this was AfDed for a second time way to soon. Changing to "Strong keep" with trout. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Less significant than other cryptocurrencies", and "significance" in general, are not considered in WP:GNG, and I don't think should be considered. The reddit thread is focused on increasing the inclusion of reliable sources in the article, and replacing primary sources with secondary sources, which is useful for everyone. They haven't had much success, because nobody has found more reliable sources, but they're approaching the issue the right way. I wouldn't be concerned with vote-rigging; the person making the final determination is supposed to base the decision on the strength of arguments presented, not the number of so-called "votes". That doesn't always happen, just like some commenters ignore notability guidelines and cite their own reasons for deleting or keeping an article, but the process can handle an influx of editors trying to influence the outcome of an AfD. Agyle (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. As mentioned, the IBT article is a reliable source, and Agyle just found a BBC article with several paragraphs dedicated to Vertcoin. Here's another one from Josic. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not consider Josic a reliable source; Josic Media is a PR company, and it's not clear that it runs as josic.com as a subsidiary that's an independent news organization. It seems like it's blending promotional services with news as part of its SEO strategy. Agyle (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the author's profile, it seems like she is writing fairly neutral articles on tech topics including cryptocurrency; I see no evidence that the source is not reliable or independent. Regardless, the BBC article is definitely OK. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's more the fact that Josic.com itself is selling domain names on its front page, author-attributed articles are written by the same three freelancers, one with SEO content backgrounds, and as I said it seems to be engaging in SEO practices through blogging, which are among the topics highlighted on its main page, which can skew "independent" journalism. But opinions often differ on less established news organizations. Agyle (talk) 00:59, 4 May 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.