Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saturncoin

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. → Call me Hahc21 05:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saturncoin[edit]

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

Page appears to exist solely to promote Saturncoin. As of this posting, the article suffers from a distinct lack of reliable secondary sources: instead, it is has two forum posts, a tweet and a link to an exchange as its references. Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Breadblade (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added valid references to this page. Its an information page about the Saturncoin Project i had only one paragraph when got reviewed by previous user, Article has been almost fully written now and the proper sources added to acomplish WP:GNG Requirements. Kind Regards (CryptosUs (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Strong Delete - failure of WP:GNG, various other things that these coins usually fail to meet, etc. Citation Needed | Talk 12:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have added valid references to this page.- Previous Author shows a conflict of interest by being writer of 2 cryptographic coins wich are in the Wikis, he fears another good coin has come to town, Advice being reviewd by People without conflic of interest, he's author of Coinye Dogecoin and now fears competition, Article follows all the WP:GNG more sources are added while more ivestigation and gathering of even more sources to add and Kindly waits for a review. Best Regards (CryptosUs (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete I had intended to let the creator develop this article but I have to agree with Breadblade, Saturncoin does not yet meet notability criteria. GNG requires actual secondary sources, not mentions on niche-interest websites. Please try again when The New York Times writes about Saturncoin. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added valid references to this page. while i answered to Chris talk and asked for feedback on new article, ive had no answer and i find previous stated interpretation of "try again when it gets to new york times" personal, a little ambigous and elitist, one can check the sources article and they are in compliance with the conditions required in WP:GNG - Citing_sources - ( SOURCES #What_counts_as_a_reliable_source ) and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources , waiting for and administrator for review and verification applying the five pillars of Wikipedia specifically reffering to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view . Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryptosUs (talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the coin is notable to the cryptocurrency community if not the larger world. It is informative to have a range of currencies on Wikipedia. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you square the lack of any reliable sources with WP:GNG? Agyle (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin - every keep vote listed above does not use policy to explain why this article meets the criteria for inclusion onto Wikipedia. Citation Needed | Talk 12:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to keep admin I have added valid references to this page. Previous user statement is wrong, Saturncoin is not a business, it is an open source Public project, you can read in the wiki, thats why this exist ;) Previous user has already been discovered to have a conflict of interest by being the writter of 2 cryptocoins, he is trying too hard to get this informative coin article deleted, and you can see his real intentions, thats no wikipedia spirit, ive even donated because i believe in wikipedia guidelines and that people like this with personal conflict of interest is sad for the wikipedia enviroment, so is adviced to be reviewed by an admin and applying the pillars of wikipedia. Wikipedia:Five_pillars Guides specific Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view as previously stated. Best Regards. (CryptosUs (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Please keep your arguments about wikipedia policy instead of trying to discredit other contributors. Breadblade (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not discrediting anyone, just stating the Facts, everyone can read the guides and see it. Best Regards (CryptosUs (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, nice amount of discussion in varied sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used in the article are very problematic, though. As of this posting, Sources 1 and 2 are forum posts written by the developer, Source 3 is a link to an exchange rate chart, Source 4 is the coin's webpage (a broken link), Source 5 is the Bitcoin whitepaper, Source 6 is a simple link to the coin's forum, Source 7 is a link to a market capitalization chart, Source 8 points to the coin's source code repo, Source 9 is the Scrypt whitepaper, Source 10 appears to be some kind of newsgroup posting, Source 11 points to the coin's blockchain statistics, Source 12 points to a blog post about a different cryptocoin, Source 13 is a bare link to an exchange, and Source 14 is a tweet that mentions "SAT" along with three other coins. I'm not seeing the significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Breadblade (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies on his review and personal judgement: source 1 and source 2 are different users, from bitcointalk.org official forum, source 3 its financial chart live history, source 4 (updated: its an article from 3rd source) source 5 yes (its clearly stated where it comes from and supporting what it is) source 6 is a well known site in the cryptocurrency world who announces the new coins and specifications and provides developers with a space to attend new community interest) source 7 yes it is the market capitalization chart as it is what this link supposed to be as is where was taken the information from, source 8 is the link to the OPEN SOURCE CODE of the project as it is being stated in the article, even litcoin article links to his repo, go fight them? source 9 your right! it is the scrypt whitepeaper as the article is telling that its based on it and providing the source. source 10 its the original discussion where Scrypt for authentication came from, again litecoin use this one as comes from Srypt also, why you are not fighting them? source 11 it is talking about the blocks statistics.. where should it link to instead ? source 12 its a site that reports on the coins popularity day by day and picks a good coin prospect and reports about it with their point of view and is known in the cryptocurrency world. source 13 it is the link supporting the post being there as you can directly see the active market, source 14 its the official account for the Cryptsy exchange where they announce the new coins added, again to support the article........(again you are just showing personal interest in deleting this article by providing personal judgdement terms instead of reviewing it and saying proper justifications). Best Regards.(CryptosUs (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Sources that are not independant from Saturncoin, sources that do not address Saturncoin directly and in detail or that lack any sort of editorial integrity do not count toward WP:GNG. That disqualifies pretty much every one of the sources I noted above from lending the article notability. Please refrain from turning this into an ad hominem argument. Breadblade (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not from saturncoin, and already stated the facts. let admin verify. Best Regards.(CryptosUs (CryptosUs (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, article talks about one of the multiple cryptocoins available today; asking for an article in NYT about a new cryptocoin is like asking an article about the Two Generals' Problem in some newspaper. It exists, is widely known but inside the academic circle. Here is the same subject: in the small world of cryptocurrencies SAT is known but not yet widely used. Is that the only reason for the deletion? Canopus⁴⁹ - Replies here 23:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find any source discussing the coin at all, besides routine postings such as exchange rate charts, forum posts and first-party postings from Saturncoin. Forget the New York Times, it doesn't even seem to have been picked up by bitcoin niche publications yet, probably because it hasn't done much yet to stand out among the hundreds (thousands?) of basically identical coins out there. Breadblade (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again personal judgement no neutral point of review at all, and you could find more disscusions if you used google. Kind Regards.(CryptosUs (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep I have added valid references to this page and removed text that might not look from a Neutral point of view, Removed external sources [last part of the article] to help it being even more neutral point of view written. Best Regards. (CryptosUs (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Strongest possible delete. Fails to meet any notability criteria because not a single reliable source was cited, nor did I find any after a good faith search. It is not covered in books, peer-reviewed journals, normal financial magazines and newspapers, or even recently-created cryptocurrency-specific publications like CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine. There were a bunch of non-reliable source citations to internet forums, businesses selling Saturncoins, anonymously run websites and so on, which I have removed for failing to meet WP:RS. Agyle (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE FOR REVIEWER: Please be aware that CryptosUs has voted multiple times in this discussion. Agyle (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE FOR REVIEWER: Please be aware that Agyle has edited the article removing ALL the sources of the article, and making his own conjectures(wich are lie, and you can find out by visiting the sources) but he DELETED them prohibiting to you to review them, i answer after i read and add/modify or erase content as its being required in the discussion, but now this user has just CENSOR the free access of information by REMOVING and DELETING the sources of the ARTICLE before you can review it. Not following the Pillars of wikipedia. (CryptosUs (CryptosUs (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I have added more verificable sources and fixed the sources previous user removed for proper Admin Review. Best Regards (CryptosUs (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

CryptosUs, the person who makes the final decision typically bases it on the opinions and arguments put forth in these discussions. I understand that you're trying to improve the article, but for the most part Wikipedia does not allow the types of sources you're citing (web forum posts, blog posts, email messages, amateur websites, etc.). This is a co-operative editing environment, and removing inappropriate content like this is not "censorship", it is an ordinary part of the editing process. I have included detailed reasons for any content removed at Talk:Saturncoin. If anyone wishes to see the version prior to my most recent edit, with CryptoUs's references intact, it is here. Agyle (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your review from a more Neutral point of view, this is different than your previous edit, and you provided links to the info of previous sources, with a clean statement with your oppinion on each source, this does feel more neutral and i appretiate it. (CryptosUs (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Forum posts and market cap listings are not significant coverage, and a search did not reveal any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE. Even though I am assuming WP:AGFgood faith,]] I suspect that this article may have been written in an attempt to legitimize the currency as well as increase its popularity and price. Ging287 (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is a insignificant altcoin not worth being featured in the Wikipedia. There are other much more innovative altcoins that need to be explained than this altcoin. Solphusion (talk) 23:37, 23 March 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.