Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titcoin (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 keep. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Titcoin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is an advertisement that was pretty much exclusively written by special-purpose accounts from 2014 to 2018. A BEFORE shows that the company received some coverage back in 2016-2018, but mostly as a joke or an illustration of the absurdity of cryptocurrency projects: in my view, this does not qualify as significant coverage per WP:SIRS. JBchrch (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAlthough having been the one who probably instigated this by editing it after a long period of dormancy, I agree, this is a "s***coin". Although, dogecoin was a "joke" until recently... and the rest is history.-GandalfGandalfo Gris (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JBchrch (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JBchrch (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. JBchrch (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing is far better than other flash-in-the-pan internet wackiness. I'm actually disappointed the Playboy article was inaccessible ("I read it for the articles" indeed), but the topic of how sex-workers get paid is actually serious business. Major financial institutions take a pretty severe stance against the sex industry, so bitcoin is just one of those work-arounds. It's a taboo, wrapped up in finance, smothered in a jokey marketing gimmick- but not deletion worthy. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of the cites are broken. Specifically the Playboy and Gizmodo cites. The CNN cite doesn't mention Titcoin. I don't think it meets "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. Hocus00 (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had a good laugh at this. But per Estheim, this isn't a flash-in-the-pan wacky cryptocurrency and is actually notorious in a pretty unique way. Certainly notable and passes GNG. Batmanthe8th (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to amount of coverage in SIRS already identified. There is also an article in a source where we have no consensus on reliability here The article itself gets a passing mention in Stolarski P, Lewoniewski W, Abramowicz W. "Cryptocurrencies Perception Using Wikipedia and Google Trends." Information. 2020; 11(4):234. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11040234. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Present news coverage and sources qualifies WP:GNG. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2021 (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.