Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devcoin

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devcoin

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

Non-notable coin, reads like any spam or advertisement. Citation Needed | Talk 16:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability. Refs provided are a forum and a developer's site and not RS coverage. A search revealed no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No warrant for notability, no sources outside of the Devcoin site, no significant news coverage, and the article reads like an advertisement. --DrCruse (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --David G (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article reads like an advertisement. SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure WP:PROMOTION, SPA creator, no reliable sources provided. Google didn't yield any either. Smite-Meister (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have resubmitted the entry in better accordance with wikipedia guidelines. This includes sources, internal and external references, and categorisation. Please let me know if there's anything I could do further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weisoq (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP.Flat Out let's discuss it 23:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added 'linuxtoday' ref to highlight independence of origin beginlinux blog ref. Added 'Guardian' source to support 'Alt' ref, and highlight the independence and notability of 'coindesk.com' - the journalists and the portal - as a resource of digital currency technology newsAndersonf87 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added 'Bootstrapping a Decentralized Autonomous Corporation' ref to help support the funding/distribution claim from a non-devcoin source, one well-regarded for cryptocurrency news and information.Andersonf87 (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review, article has been improved by many users, so many of above comments are not actual. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, the sources still seem to lack reliability. It looks like the only WP:RELIABLE source is the on from the guardian, and that says the word devcoin exactly once, as part of the sentence: "But there are many others: PPCoin, Freicoin, Namecoin, Terracoin, Devcoin, IxCoin and Novacoin, to name a few." Hardly suitable for establishing notability. All, as in, every single one (except linuxtoday) of the other sources is a niche, cryptocurrency specific website. Maybe this coin could be added to something like "List of cryptocurrencies", but it is not suitable for its own article. Benboy00 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per what I said above Benboy00 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. I consider the currently cited sources in the article except The Guardian, Coindesk, and Bitcoin Magazine not to be reliable sources, and the coverage afforded in those three sources does not establish notability. I also did a search of books, news articles, and academic journals and sources; it is mentioned in two books, but neither afforded a preview concerning what was said, and it wasn't clear whether they were "legitimate" books or just cobbled-together collections of Wikipedia articles. Devcoin was also mentioned in a paragraph in a research paper from Instituto Universitario de Investigación sobre Seguridad Interior, but along the same level of "this exists" coverage as Coindesk's. --Agyle (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add, concerning why I don't consider the Linux Today citation a reliable source: LT seems to rely on user-submitted articles. The LT "article" cited here is a single short paragraph pointing to an off-site "complete story" that's simply a blog post on a different website. It fails WP:RS hard. --Agyle (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short-term Delete - Not notable right now but may eventually become noteworthy as it is actually quite interesting.VinceSamios (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Linuxtoday is aggregated and user-submitted, but as far as I'm aware it's edited prior to posting and a major open-source news source. All of their articles are in the format you outline. Devcoin is about open-source and crytpocurrencies; the sources referenced are among the most reliable and 'notable' in those fields (and are not devcoin-only sites). The specific devcoin sources are only to explain the technicalities and specifics which wouldn't be hosted as information on another site (per every other cryptocurrency wikipedia submission).Andersonf87 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add, if some now consider reliability is determined via "The Guardian, Coindesk, and Bitcoin Magazine" and the later two of those three (and perhaps linuxtoday) substantiate the core of the devcoin article and are very notable in their fields, by what objective measure does wikipedia then assess notability and find it lacking?Andersonf87 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point: Coindesk, if considered a reliable source (which I'm not 100% sure it is) does not mention devcoin in significant way. Of the two articles linked, one mentions devcoin once, in the sentence "Should you mine Luckycoin, Devcoin, Nibble or PPCoin?" The other is a list of (mostly non-notable) alternative virtual currencies, and talks for one paragraph (out of 16) about devcoin. The BTC magazine article mention is most certainly in passing, and therefore not suitable for establishing notability. You seem to be confusing words like reliability and notable. The source needs to be reliable, to show that the article is notable. Notability is determined via reliable sources. Wikipedia assesses notability as laid out WP:GNG here, i.e. Must have multiple significant mentions in reliable sources. Of course, this is not an absolute thing, but for our purposes it can be treated as one, unless there is an obvious problem with that. Benboy00 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to make clear, that paper is a good source of information, but is obviously not suitable for demonstrating notability in this case (not that anyone said it was). Benboy00 (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andersonf87, I gather from your contributions that you're new to Wikipedia editing as of two days ago. I'm not sure I'd call it an “objective” measure, but in answer to your question, the guideline for notability on Wikipedia is at WP:N. Other people above have linked to other guidelines or sections of guidelines on Wikipedia policies: WP:RS, WP:ADVERTISE, WP:CORP, WP:Single-purpose account, and WP:PROMOTION. I didn't mean to say the three sources I listed are necessarily reliable sources, and I am not an employee of Wikipedia nor do I have any special authority to officially decree publications as reliable or not reliable. My point was that in my opinion, the other sources are clearly not reliable sources (per WP:RS), and that the remaining sources (whether reliable or not) still do not fulfill WP:N's notability requirement. There are subjective calls on questions of reliability or notability, and that's why decisions are opened to group discussion. ––Agyle (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agyle, yes I'm new. Many of the earlier links you note relate to a submission prior to my edit. I agreed with those earlier opinions and is what prompted my article overhaul. I've now spent a lot of time reading through wiki policy links (beginning with those suggested by Flat Out and Vanjagenije and their suggestions/edits) so I hope my points are becoming more on point. The subjectivity I referred to was really only with regards to notability and linuxtoday (and others and reliability) and that opinions such as yours, mine and wiki employees may differ when on a subject where familiarity with certain sources and how they work may differs. However, I also welcome the group discussion and appraisal.Andersonf87 (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added ref to 2012 SOTICS paper (p.25 summary of devcoin - alt currency, open source, distribution)Andersonf87 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. It seems quite subjective then, in that I assumed notability was contextual to the article. The sources might not be joe-bloggs mainstream but pretty mainstream for the subject matter (reliable). I understood that linuxtoday submissions are checked before posting by an editor so that article would amount to reliable and notable. The brief coindesk article mention was to highlight that this is the same journalist as TheGuardian article - to make the point about the tenured journalists and source in general (reliability). Formalising the article as 'needing improvement' would be fair (like the Ripple (payment protocol) article), but I don't think deletion is warranted.Andersonf87 (talk) 23:52, 11 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.