Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptobank

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. The consensus is to delete all three articles PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptobank

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article with no sourcing and seemingly was created by a SPA to help promote his own cryptobank, Coinkite, which is also being put up for deletion. Despite a article in the Toronto Star, it's not enough to warrant an article. An related article not created by the same user is in even worse shape, and unlike Coinkite, I can't find anything on it. The two stores fail WP:GNG, etc. However, I would not be opposed to moving Cryptobank into the Article Incubator or even userspace (personally, I would be happy to work on it from time to time).

Here are the companion articles:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : "Cryptobank" isn't a real term.Chris Arnesen 23:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree See en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Cryptobank --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete : Bitcoiniacs got a lot of press for being the "world's first bitcoin ATM"Chris Arnesen 00:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's a burst of recent media coverage, including from the Reuters and UPI, but to me it falls short of the "significant coverage" standard in WP:N. While there are stories that focus on the company itself, many of the articles are more interested in the "first Bitcoin ATM", which is built by a different company, Robocoins. Bitcoiniacs was the first customer, and did receive coverage as a result, but it's a little bit incidental, and may have been fleeting. ––Agyle (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I hadn't read the articles closely enough. I've changed my "vote" to delete.Chris Arnesen 19:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Coinkite. Not notable. Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)Chris Arnesen 00:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So which one is it Chris--keep or delete? You can't vote both in the same discussion. Jinkinson talk to me 01:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jinkinson: If I'm not mistaken, this one page is being used to discuss the potential deletion of three different related articles, Cryptobank and the two articles that link to that article, Coinkite and Bitcoiniacs. My vote is to ~~keep Bitcoiniacs but delete both Cryptobank and Coinkite~~ delete all three.Chris Arnesen 09:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cryptobank. Not notable. Cannot locate its use in any books or academic articles, nor in a cursory web search for reliable sources. (It did occur in one novel, and as a fictional example company name in a cryptography book, but not in the sense it is used here). ––Agyle (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coinkite. Not notable. ––Agyle (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, please sign this! --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I only signed first delete; have signed all three now. ––Agyle (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bitcoinacs. Not notable. ––Agyle (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, please sign this! --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I only signed first delete; have signed all three now. ––Agyle (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest breaking Bitcoinacs out to a seperate afd. It was created by a different user, is a business with a physical product, and as Chris Arnesen notes above, has had a different level of coverage from the other two subjects.Dialectric (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coinkite and Bitcoiniacs, enough notable. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.