Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peercoin

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peercoin[edit]

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

References do not show notability according to wikipedia standards. Minor mentions in large lists of coins, non-independent and non-reliable sources HoopJumper (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ars Technica, MIT Technology Review and Wired are three citations from the article that address Peercoin (or PPCoin, as it was once known) directly, and in detail. They're independent secondary sources, and seem to be reliable. Some of the content in the article may need to be better sourced (or removed), but the article itself seems to pretty clearly meet GNG. Breadblade (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has coverage in independent and reliable sources, namely Breadblade's listed sources, and others (such as New York Times Dealbook and Equities). While it's true that many sources list Peercoin only in passing, but it is still a major point in several sources regarding cryptocurrencies in general. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OneGuy (talk)
Weak Keep There are clearly well respected sources as listed above by Breadblade as well as what seems to be a bit of academic notability (even if the author had a hand in it), but this is barely enough for me to vote in favor of keeping this article. If we can find more sources, it's good to go. Citation Needed | Talk 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:17, 7 January 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.