Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primecoin (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 11:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primecoin

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

Only good source is an paper published by it's own creator. The Cunningham chain records do indeed exist, but are merely trivial pieces. A couple of world records in something that the general, non-mathematical, minded public isn't likely even aware of isn't enough for notability to be established.

Last discussion ended in a no cocensus. I doubt it will happen again this time. This article might assert notability, but it's not enough to get over the hurdle of notability. Citation Needed | Talk 13:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's someone talking about how amazing the proof-of-work is: Primecoin by Vitalik Buterin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.219.252.253 (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. Shii (tock) 15:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ but requires editting. TomokoFuji (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is a lot of money in this altcoin, above 10million. however i agree this coin is more of a background currency. No reason to remove a page though, no harm.TomokoFuji (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: TomokoFuji has been indefinitly blocked as a sockpuppet (see investigation). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as notable, but unverifiable. Epicgenius (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC}
Delete for failing WP:SIGCOV. I see citations of Cunningham chains, lists of exchange rates, blogs with passing mention of the currency. Notability not established. Blue Riband► 02:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does the current article fail WP:SIGCOV with references to articles with the subject in the title from major sites like The Register and Business 2 Community? Please describe which criteria in that list it fails to satisfy. 84.55.98.173 (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very limited secondary coverage, most of which is brief and in passing. May be worth mentioning its records with Cunningham chains in the cryptocurrency article, though. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added articles from The Register, Ars Technica, Business 2 Community, and Data Center Knowledge with non-trivial mention of the currency. I can't say if that's enough to satisfy the notability and verifiablity criteria, but I think so. 84.55.98.173 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cryptocurrency. My view is we don't need a page for each stock in Crypto. Just have a list with important features included will do. V-apharmd (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: V-apharmd has been indefinitly blocked as a sockpuppet per the results of this SPI. Benboy00 (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misunderstanding what cryptocurrencies are. They do not fit the definition of a "stock" by any stretch of the imagination. Trinitresque (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 84 has added good sources, and it already had good secondary sources before. KonveyorBelt 17:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now clearly demonstrates notability using reliable secondary sources. The original nominator never elaborated on how this article is not notable. Trinitresque (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources seem to demonstrate notability. Huey2323 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not withdrawing the nomination. I do not feel that it is enough to establish notability. Business 2 Communicate is a business blog, and blogs aren't reliable sources. Ars Technicia only mentions Primecoin for about a sentence, and The Hacker News looks like a blog isn't a reliable source either. The Register has two articles on the coin, so what? Sure, that might be reliable, but you can't base an entire article on two news sources alone. Most of these keep votes aren't elaborating how this coin "clearly establishes notability" through two blogs and two news pieces off The Register. Citation Needed | Talk 23:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a book that is discussing Primecoin's proof-of-work system. What more do you want? Looking at your other contributions (Dogecoin in particular), I'm afraid there's a conflict of interest here, not a lack of notability. 84.55.98.173 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book seemed to be self-published, which is not considered a reliable source. I have also edited several cryptocurrency–related articles, and while I too try to be conscious of possible conflicts of interest, merely editing related articles does not indicate such a conflict. I have voted to keep some articles and ditch others, but I try to state my reasons clearly and objectively. The final ruling is not simply based on a vote count, but is supposed to consider the merits of the arguments. ––Agyle (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its use of primes and the records set there makes it notable, as does its market cap. — Mini-Geek ^(talk) 23:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree in the informal sense of the word notable (PrimeCoin really is a cool idea!), Wikipedia has specific criteria that have to be met in order to establish notability for an article. Neither novelty nor market capitalization are considerations. (See WP:GNG or WP:CORP for info). ––Agyle (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well known and well referenced article.WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources provided are better, but they're still either trivial or not from reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP; reliable sources providing significant coverage are too few (2?) and too weak. Almost all the sources in the article were primary sources (written by the creator of the coin), or self-published or otherwise non-reliable sources. Of the remaining five citations about Primecoin, two are about Primecoin causing a temporary shortage in server rentals, and two are about a hacking exploit targeting Primecoin miners, which is somewhat incidental coverage. The only non-incidental coverage I've seen about the topic are:
- Buterin, Vitalik (8 July 2013). "Primecoin: the cryptocurrency whose mining is actually useful". Bitcoin Magazine. Coin Publishing Ltd.
- Gilson, David (10 July 2013). "New currency Primecoin searches for prime numbers as proof of work". CoinDesk. CoinDesk Ltd.

I consider both of these reliable sources for citing facts, but they are weak reliable sources compared to more established publications like the Wall Street Journal or New York Times as indicators of notability. I do not accept market-capitalization-based arguments, as it is not part of any notability guidelines, market cap is subject to manipulation in lesser-traded currencies, and the degree of fungibility of the currency is not established by any reliable source. ––Agyle (talk) 09:24, 8 February 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.