Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:FLOat1NGP01NT0O1/Florincoin

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:FLOat1NGP01NT0O1/Florincoin


Yet another WP:STALE userspace draft. 10Eleventeen 20:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * which part of WP:STALE are you pointing to as rationale here? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This part: "For userspace drafts where notability is unlikely to be achieved, consensus is that they should not be kept indefinitely. However, the community did not arrive at a specified time duration." 10Eleventeen 20:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, but because I would have nominated for speedy deletion under CSD U5 if I had found this, not because it's abandoned. Abandonment is sufficient reason to blank, but not to take to here to MfD. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. A proper looking draft.  As such, it is not eligible for U5.  STALE is near useless a term.  Editorially, if you think the topic is old and no longer useful, use Inactive userpage blanked.  Do not bring every old userpage to MfD.  If you nomination begins with "yet another", either you are making a case for a new speedy criterion, or you are bringing busywork.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:STALE states if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion. This draft does not meet that criterion. Furthermore, Wikipedia talk:User pages was assessed as: There is consensus that userspace drafts should have no expiration date. They can be deleted, but it should be done on grounds different than solely the age of the draft or the period the draft has not been edited. Notability is not a pertinent primary concern per WP:NMFD. U5 is inapplicable per SmokeyJoe. No applicable grounds for deletion have been presented. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per above &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with Godsy and Smokeyjoe. The encyclopedia won't fall if this page remains.Egaoblai (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete possible scam. Old as the hills in crytocurrency time. No value to tje project and would be quickly deleted from mainspace as not notable. Legacypac (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - not obviously a scam but we could debate all night about whether cryptocurrency is a scam in general (I'm not starting that debate). I doubt the claim that this coin was the first to include comments in the blockchain, Gridcoin does and it is about the same age. Can't find any references, including those given, with substantial coverage of this coin versus routine coverage of crypto markets, so it seems that this draft is about a topic that would not survive in mainspace. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:23, 17 May 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.