Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memecoin

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Memecoin

Memecoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Declined speedy. The article was copied from Litecoin and had names and some details changed. There are no independent reliable sources for "Memecoin". Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Also note that a page with the same name was deleted a couple of days ago as a blatant hoax. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, This article clearly states that it is a fork of the litecoin software suite. There are currently over 52 different forks of bitcoin and litecoins. Each with "some" yet important details changed. Do you know which forks there are? does anyone know? Based on that this article and other forthcoming articles should stay on wikipedia if anything just for historical value. Being the software release date It is not going to have many more reliable references other than the creator links contained within. as far as a blatant hoax well that is untrue as well. Just because the original article was listed as a simple sentence by the poster, this article goes into some depth of the specifics of this fork of cryptocurrency. Hakware (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)hakware

• Keep, good deal of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete None of the WP:RS mentioned actually talk about memecoin; the rest are either non-WP:RS or aren't significant coverage LFaraone 03:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - If there is a "good deal of source coverage," as mentioned above, I'm sure not seeing it. Nor do the footnotes showing seem to deal with Memecoin — although Litecoin certainly seems to pass muster under GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I am going to hang a hoax tag on this article, in the wake of a previous hoax deletion of the subject and the complete and utter illogic of a currency divisible to units 1/100,000,000th. I would enjoy hearing from the commenter above about the "good deal of source coverage" which he has managed to locate. Carrite (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly merge to Litecoin. Memecoin exists and has associated websites [1],[2] and a software package for mining memecoins. But it seems to be a Litecoin derivative and has not gained much traction yet. I've been unable to find any independent reliable sources for the topic. Without independent RS, this topic falls below general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. Might be worth a mention in Litecoin as a derivative, but the topic is marginal even for that. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, so there is no prejudice to re-creation if multiple in-depth independent reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

They "exist" with a Facebook page with 5 followers and a launch date this month... I'm still going with my gut that this is parody. Carrite (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Merge into Litecoin, I've lost count at the number of times it's been CSD'd & recreated!. -
  

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Merge, I can see this being merged with Litecoin. Perhaps a section on litecoin could accommodate a table of the various forks and coin specifications of the scrypt based encryption crypto currency. I disagree with Carrite that its a parody, The amount of users on Facebook who "like" a page does not necessarily indicate hoax or fraud. Especially since its release into the wild was only a few days ago. As an anecdotal remark and outside the scope of a wiki article there appears to be some websites coming online which promise to be an exchange BTC/MEM or LTC/MEM for trade as well as a storefront where products (computer?) can be purchased? directly with Memecoins. Apologies, I digress. Hakware (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)hakware
• Delete kill it with fire. Burn it. Spammy junk that has no references for it specifically, except to its own website. Just another scam currency designed to get people to part with their money, giving it to the creators of this "money". Seriously, what's the point of creating these "currencies" when their already exists perfectly acceptable other cryptocurrencies? If you have a bright idea about something, try and get it into Bitcoin or something. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - This is just yet another fork of Litecoin which exists just to be dumped on exchanges eventually and will be killed after it's unprofitable to mine it. I suggest waiting a week or two to see if the coin matures to a stable exchange or becomes a viable method of payment somewhere. 66.223.150.116 (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Has just been listed on Crypsy Exchange, source code on github — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.201.155 (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Actually it does not appear to be a "dump" coin. Not nearly enough promotion and love to justify as such. It was released during the deluge of other pump n dump coinage with no fanfare and only a handful of people mining it. Hash rates on the network have only gone up since it was listed on Cryptsy. Certainly time will tell. All this crypto stuff is too unstable for any of them to be taken too seriously. Hakware (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC) hakware
• Keep, I find it reelvant and interesting.--Pwnagic (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  Comment WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid justification. LFaraone 17:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  I find it interesting because I can know when the coin was launched, how is wrote an address, how is mined (SHA256 instead of scrypt), what is the time between blocks...--Pwnagic (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, I can understand where all of the cryptocurrency suspicion comes from... However, this one is here to stay. It has an obvious, established, official website and it's network hashrate has only gone up since the launch. It seems that new services are being provided for it every other day. It is currently in the 'trial grounds' stage but has already made it to an exchange. There is slow, but uprising support for it on the official Bitcoin forum's appropriate 'Alternative Cryptocurrencies' section. Regarding the article itself: It is not a hoax nor is it explictly created towards the goal of being promotional. Veterans, I suggest you do a bit more research before casually flagging this for ANY deletion disregarding all of the work involved in creation of the page. So with all of that in mind, I see absolutely no logical reason to delete this article as it has already proven to be historical in it's (currently) short life. --Blaztoize (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC) — Blaztoize (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  It may one day qualify for inclusion, but right now it does not pass the general notability guideline: Memecoin has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see how any of the references in the article establish notability of memecoin itself (as opposed to litecoin). Peacock (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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.