Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zerocoin


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Zerocoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another altcoin debate. Are you excited?

I started a debate to merge earlier due to two sources being from Forbes and what seems like an academic paper published by the coin's developers. Everything else seems to be forum posts or tweets by the authors. I do not think that the academic paper (which I think is okay to keep as a source, because it also provides for references on it's own) or the Forbes source alone can warrant even a stub article. I am neutral. [ citation needed  ] 14:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't support the merger. It was originally proposed as a enhancement to Bitcoin, but as the article says, now they're planning to release it as its own digital currency. Chris Arnesen 23:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As Chris mentions above, it is no longer a proposed extension to Bitcoin. Taken from the article, this tweet by one of the developers shows that it will be released as an altcoin next year. I suppose, then, that it may fall within the confines of WP:CRYSTAL, but that's for another discussion. — SolarStarSpire (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose While related, it's a separate subject. Cloudswrest (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the reasons stated above. I don't pay any attention to any alt-coins, but I would pay attention to this one. It's important.  Sanpitch (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Its only incidentally related to Bitcoin. Silbtsc (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose It will be released as an independent cryptocurrency. Bitcoin has rejected using it. Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 19:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This does appear to be someone attempting to manipulate the Bitcoin crypto-currency market. It's a pointless exercise which will fall at the first post.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandtplatt (talk • contribs) 08:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keepish. There's also an article in IEEE Spectrum, which does appear independent (well, it's mostly an interview) and The Verge gave it a bit of coverage too (as I pointed out in another discussion). Also covered in New Scientist  and little bit a NYT journalist's blog  and by Business Insider a little bit . Given the precedent with Articles for deletion/Ripple (payment protocol), I'm getting the impression that the nominator doesn't put much effort in finding sources for this type of article before nominating. Honestly, I would not object to nominating this again a couple of years from now because the press coverage might be a flash in the proverbial pan due to their extreme focus on Bitconin this year. (Compare to the focus on P2P in the early 2000s and the coverage that one can find for stuff like Mnet (peer-to-peer network), aka Mojonation.) On the other hand, the academic paper was published at the top conference in security (IEEE S&P 2013), so chances are decent it might turn up influential enough in the academic realm, which is mostly just getting started to focus on crypto currencies. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, I do have that reputation now, don't I? Actaully, I think I was supportive of Primecoin's inclusion in addition to my own article just a couple of days earlier. [ citation needed  ] 13:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per above, WP:GNG --Surfer43_¿qué pasa? 18:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have some media coverage, and the anonymity feature is technically notable. Thue (talk) 19:52, 29 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.