Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fastcoin

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. SPA comments in this discussion are discounted, as new users are unlikely to have a sense of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Also salted, due to past re-creation. bd2412 T 13:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fastcoin[edit]

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

Bitcoin competitor that doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:N: the sourcing that exists is actually about another cryptocurrency that is similar to it, and some of that is in non-reliable sources. This has been deleted twice per WP:G11, and the original author last time was a company account. I don't feel the text at this time meets the G11 standards, but I do think it is likely promotional and that the coverage this article presents is more than the actual subject has ever received, making exclusion per WP:NOTPROMO also relevant. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both promotional and non notable --the references are mre aqnnouncents. The format of this article with its inapppropriate See Also section seems very familiar DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another cryptocurrency in the world. Like most of the hundreds of other that are on wikipedia. This is not meant to be promotional at all. Every single cryptocurrency article on Wikipedia could be construed as 1. competitor to Bitcoin. 2. reading them all seem to be promotional. According to your reasoning every cryptocurrency article other than Bitcoin should be nominated for deletion from Wikipedia. Trowdad (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also section has been removed. Trowdad (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability; not in the top100 on CoinMarketCap. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter that it's not in the top 100!? It is a legitmate crypto with a ton of potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:101:7372:A0E3:C89F:BA7A:88F3 (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is the ranking on coinmarketcap a criteria for notability ? Since when ? Because I can make a list of coins that have an Wikipedia article and are not in he top 100 on coinmarketcap: BlackCoin (Rank 118), Mastercoin (Rank 126), CryptoNote (Rank 128), Burstcoin (Rank 143), Gridcoin (Rank 151), Feathercoin (Rank 171), Primecoin (Rank 196), Auroracoin (Rank 229) And those coins have a worse ranking than Fastcoin on coinmarketcap, and still have a Wikipedia article: SixEleven (Rank 495), Titcoin (Rank 591) I see no difference between Fastcoin and all those coins in terms of notability. And this list is probably incomplete. Sir Iglou (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Classic WP:OTHERSTUFF, not persuasive to keep this. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Several of those could be nominated for deletion as well. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2017 (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.