Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feathercoin

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. I am afraid I do not have many options to close it differently. Whereas the delete votes use strong arguments, sources are available (at least nobody objected to the last argument in the discussion), and the article seem to be salvageable without deletion, by just re-writing.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feathercoin[edit]

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

Advertisment with all primary references. StipulatedFred (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be found. All the ones at the moment are either by the creators of Feathercoin or posts on internet forums. Cliff12345 (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improve and keep the article. Are news coverage sources such as CoinDesk considered independent and notable enough? WSF (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage is sparse and not significant. At this point, Feathercoin is one many Bitcoin type initiatives. No prejudice to recreation in the future if it actually catches on and gets significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The project is only half a year old and cannot be compared by news coverage to other cryptocurrency projects which exist for years. At the same time, Feathercoin is an established Top 5 cryptocurrency by market capitalisation and community size. WSF (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Notability on Wikipedia is established with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so actually the news coverage does matter. It may be simply too soon for an article at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Most technical details provided in the article may be verified easily by checking commit history of their open source project at GitHub, though certain programming experience is required. For instance, the article on Litecoin has no better notability level as most of the references are either Bitcoin related or affiliated closely to the project. However, I fail to see it labelled for deletion or having any issues at all. WSF (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - I have no idea whether Litecoin should be deleted or not, but it isn't the subject of discussion here. -- Whpq (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a number of news articles [1], [2], [3], and [4] that look secondary and reasonably independent to me. The articles are from coindesk.com, bitcoinmagazine.com and theguardian.com; theses sources look reliable to me, but I'm no expert on the specialist press for this field. Overall, it seems like there are multiple RS needed for marginal notability. The article is bit promotional, but toning it down is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A marginally notable topic and and an article with surmountable problems suggests a (marginal) keep. --Mark viking (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2013 (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.