Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yacoin


 * 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. After disregarding the opinions that are based on such matters as market capitalization or technical merits, none of which are relevant under our inclusion guidelines, consensus is that this topic hasn't received sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources for us to be able to write an article about it.  Sandstein  09:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yacoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject appears non-notable: yet another Bitcoin fork, with no reliable sources to speak of. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete the only "sources" backing this coin are technical documentations released by the author. [ citation needed  ] 02:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Could not find any reliable sources using Google, just forums, blogs and project sites. Not notable. Looks like yet another attempt at using Wikipedia to promote a pyramid scheme. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per above, my searches haven't turned up RS coverage either. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it actually is the first coin to use the scrypt algorithm correctly, c.f. the twitter of the scrypt creator at []78.52.81.125 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The twitter of the creator really isn't what WP policy considers a reliable source. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, is a unique altcoin that has had a market capitalisation in the millions of dollars (is tracked by coinmarketcap) though lately it has fallen a bit. Mathmo Talk 04:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some unique McMansions in my town that have a market value in the millions of dollars. Should they get an article too?  Come on -- Y not? 15:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ≈Keep Yacoin is so young that no traditional academic sources have been able to review and publish information about it. Wikipedia's policies are self-destructive when they prevent the free publication of information because of something as archaic as publication cycles. Ditto for most other cryptocurrencies.Cypherious (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure AfD is the proper place to raise a dispute with Wikipedia's notability policy. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete spam article about non-notable software. InShaneee (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep delete arguments are not actual. The article have receved more refs which makes much above comments inaccurate. --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 11:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read Identifying reliable sources - none of the sources provided thusfar are independent reliable sources.Dialectric (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Unfortunately there has been no coverage for this coin that falls under Wikipedia's Reliable-Sources definition. However, based on that definition, it's terrible that it's much more likely a "joke" coin based on a meme meets that definition . Thirtybird (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Forbes isn't a reliable source? --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A trivial mention in a reliable source is not enough to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, nice amount of refs for potential improvement, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The Google search above doesn't return any WP:RS that support notability of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Very low market cap. YubbaDoo (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Market cap is not a reason to decide anything on Wikipedia. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For my opinion it is. It just don't have a value at all on the cryptocurrency market. YubbaDoo (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's cool but you should read that little infobox about Wikipedia policies and guidelines at the top of the page. Smite-Meister (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Market cap is not the only reason for my deletion vote, e.g. it's not notable enough. YubbaDoo (talk) 23:44, 21 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.