Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemic Standard Economy

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 --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemic Standard Economy[edit]

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

I briefly had this marked for speedy as patent nonsense, because large sections of it literally make no sense. However, someone has obviously put a lot of work into it. That said, checking the references and reading what parts of the article are not incomprehensible gibberish, the whole thing is original research at best. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content in the article does not match the content in the sources cited. Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of existing published content. This article contains new ideas which are not from the sources cited. I have no criticism about the quality of this content except that it does not meet Wikipedia standards for citations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – OR essay, apparently by someone who wants to start a new cryptocurrency. See the CureCoin link in the article. Can't find any sources except other essays, probably by the same person, in places like reddit: [1]. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. Certainly it is hard to figure out what exactly the topic is since the article lacks organization, but even with rosy-colored glasses I don't see the sourcing for this topic. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those three words strung together thus did not exist as a term prior to October 2014, and as far as I can tell the only usage so far externally has been as marketing gobbledegook to sell CureCoin. At best, it's not notable; at worst it's spam. Pax 06:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying this from the article's talk page; it's a message from the author. I suppose it counts as a keep !vote.

This is my first wikipedia article and English is not my first language, so I'll use those points as a crutch :-) --Ituma (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
as far as neologism, nothing like this has ever existed until 2014. I have had no complaints in the talk section from any of the listed cryptocurrencies disputing the newly coined term "Epistemic Standard Economy". In fact, I've had nothing but positive feedback from the cryptocurrency world since the article came out.

The article has had over 2000 views

I can try to clean up the article and take out some of the "fluff" to make it less essay-like, however everything mentioned exists.

The links were accurate at the time or writing, but the source publications may have moved them since.

The reason you may not be able to get to some of the linked pages is because cryptocurrency networks use higher levels of security (ssl) which don't always load successfully on the first try (or the second). I have the same problem myself. Perhaps i could just reference articles from within Wikipedia to alleviate the connectivity issues.

The "patent nonsense" is critical to the article ... I can reference an article from inside wikipedia to make it cleaner.
The reason the three listed cryptocurrencies exist is because the Bayh-Dole act forces Universities to monetize crowd-sourced research without any requirement to reward the volunteers.

Please let me know more specifics on which features need to be changed. This article is absolutely essential to distinguish science backed cryptocurrencies from their bitcoin-clone counterparts.
Also, I thought I over-refernced the article, yet in the deletion notes, it was mentioned I did not use enough citations. Is it possible your browser cache was flaky after attempting to access some of the SSL secure web content?
Anyway, let me know - I put a lot of heart and soul into this article making it as accurate (based on references) as possible. It serves as a good point of reference for people deciding which science backed cryptocurrency to support.--Ituma (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Ituma"+"CureCoin" into Google brings up this; is that yours? ...even if not, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. This article is just not going to fly. Pax 16:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly OR. The refs don't talk about the topic. To the author: I understand you put a lot of effort into this but Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of work. Try publishing in a journal or conference on cloud computing, Internet economy, etc. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR PianoDan (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How long do I get to adjust the article to be less promotional, and more wiki-like. You have to understand this took a long time to collect all the linked content, and it might take me a couple weeks to find the time to make a serious adjustment. What's interesting is that although YES I am affiliated with Curecoin, I list three other cryptocurrencies doing very similar work with Distributed Computing Networks. It seems everyone is fixated on the Curecoin promotional aspects when this article is attempting to define a monetary system based on multiple coins falling under the same category - what if I removed ALL coin references (curecoin, gridcoin, foldingcoin and primecoin)? Would that help - or will the article still require outside references to establish the existence of an "Epistemic Standard Economy" before it can be defined in a wiki? That's fine if thats the case - I'll have to delete the article under the rules of violating neologism. Ituma (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"will the article still require outside references to establish the existence of an "Epistemic Standard Economy" before it can be defined in a wiki?" Yes, the article requires outside references to establish the existence of the thing it's talking about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an acedemic journal. I appreciate that you've done a lot of work, but you aren't describing something that others have described before, you're trying to create a new thing. As for how long until this discussion closes, they are supposed to last a week, so probably tomorrow. I suggest you copy your work and save it locally on your computer so you can publish it elsewhere later. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict so some of this may overlap with what ONUnicorn said: I think you should save your work somewhere (you can paste the wikicode into a file in Word or some other word processor on your computer) and then step back and spend some time reviewing some basic information about Wikipedia because from your comments it seems to me that you still fundamentally don't understand the requirements for an article. Here are some good overview articles: wp:42 wp:five pillars. The coin references (although an issue) are completely irrelevant to whether you need good wp:references If you don't have good references you don't have an article its that simple.It doesn't matter if your article is about string theory or Beyonce, all articles require that every significant claim is backed up by a good wp:reference. You also seem to have a major wp:conflict of interest in that you are affiliated with a company trying to monetize this idea. It doesn't matter if you remove refs to your particular company, the fact that your company will directly benefit from spreading this idea still means you have a COI and even if this wasn't OR you would have severe restrictions on how much you could participate in writing an article on this topic. Again, my advise is to turn it into an article for a journal, conference, trade magazine, or if you just want to put it out there self publish it as a blog. I'm sorry to be blunt but I don't want you to waste your time -- or frankly our time we are all volunteers and have other things to do. You are about as far away from having a viable article as its possible to be. wp:Conflict of interest, wp:original research, lack of wp:notability, and lack of good wp:references Any ONE of those can disqualify an article and you IMO have all of them. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - thanks for everyone's time, and input ... lets get it deleted. Good learning experience. Regardless, I encourage everyone commenting here to participate in at least one of the coins mentioned. All of them have potentially transcendental implications for the world: "What IF every financial transaction you made from now on benefited humanity?" So much to cover in a short article :-) Thanks all. Ituma (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2015 (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.