Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldcoin

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. slakr\ talk / 11:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcoin[edit]

All prior XfDs for this page:


Worldcoin (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)

Non-notable altcoin, fails WP:GNG, WP:PROMO. Citation Needed | Talk 00:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note a LOT of discussion below is about whether links are reliable links, and I was told by one user not to repeatedly post them when talking. So I will be just posting them on top here, labeled 1-8, and we can discuss according to the number. There's a new link added today from a new source, which I find reliable, lets see if the community agrees:
1, http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_01_30/Worldcoin-speed-of-transactions-5546/
2, http://-moneyweek-.com/bitcoin-and-cryptocurrencies-the-new-dotcom-stocks/ (link requires manual moficiation for the obvious.)
3, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB40001424052702304607104579210051252568362
4, http://m.nationalreview.com/article/367412/altcoin-investment-dummies-betsy-woodruff
5, http://www.zznews.gov.cn/health/jsqy/2014/0110/5695.html
6, http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/01/24/worldcoin-community-funds-well-system-africa/
7, http://www.libertyglobe.com/2013/12/27/making-the-case-for-worldcoin-as-the-next-big-cryptocurrency/
8, http://readwrite.com/2013/12/03/the-bitcoin-alternative-field-guide
9, http://www.cryptonews.biz/quarkcoin-vs-megacoin-vs-worldcoin-vs-protoshares-vs-feathercoin/
10, http://www.coindesk.com/top-altcoins-2013/
11, http://cryptosource.org/worldcoin-financial-services-announced/
12, http://www.jinronger.com/news/28667
13, http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch/cashing-in-on-bitcoin-111318083837 (this is video, mention worldcoin and litecoin are the better known, and of better value.)

Marketcap info: http://coinmarketcap.com/mineable.html (this is for reference only, but indeed these are all the mineable cryptos, and WDC is #8. There are many retailers accepting worldcoin as well. if requested I can post them here. I did previously, and there are newer ones now even, but I was told not to post them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs) 16:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most exchanges prefer to have WDC and LTC before other crypto currencies. USD outlets: https://crypto-trade.com http://coinMKT.com http://scharmbeck.com (in beta)

CNY outlets: http://BTC38.com http://BTer.com

Sterling outlet: https://bittylicious.com/

Cross-Crypto-exchanges. http://MCXnow.com http://CoinEX.pw http://Cryptsy.com https://vircurex.com/


I feel strongly that the above and that links 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 should be considered reliable, as they are 3rd party, notable in the community, and up-to-date. and I feel it is more than enough to justify through WP:GNG, the TL:DR below is mostly from users saying what is and why not, some are subjective, some have good cases. However, with all of the above mention, can we REALLY say Worldcoin doesn't have enough 2nd party media mention? please discuss with me here, thanks. KR 16:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. why is this article even being considered for deletion? Scharmbeck is a LLC, which is a legit company backing an altcoin, doesn't it makes it more legit than most altcoins today? [1] Would also like to add, Sites like crypto-trade.com rates WDC at the level of importance as LTC, (these are the altcoins with US dollar exchanges only), I would like to suggest lets edit this article until it meets standard, but it has to stay. If Worldcoin is not included, then altcoins like dogecoins/quark/primecoin/litecoin shouldn't even have entry either. ApharionDeSol (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — ApharionDeSol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
ApharionDeSol, it is being considered because the nominee said it failed to meet the standards of the general notability guideline (WP:GNG), and/or the spam guideline (WP:PROMO). Incorporation as an LLC does not assure notability. How “legit” it is compared to other currencies is irrelevant; there notable fraudulent enterprises (e.g. Ponzi Scheme, Madoff investment scandal) and non-notable legitimate enterprises. ––Agyle (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks reply, but for the same instant, on your same arguement, while legit or not remains unknown (same for ALL corporation I guess. even Enron was a scam, I remember.) It still shows more effort in development comparing to other cryptocurrencies, and puts Worldcoin at the same development of Bitcoin surpassing Litecoin. This is why I voted in favor of keeping. My bottom line was, the page is informative, the externals links are second party and meets WP:GNG, as other Crypto like Litecoin has a page, I see no reason to deny WorldCoin. However, at this point, I would like to suggest, does ANY crypto deserve a page themselves? Shouldn't ALL crypto including Bitcoin have their page removed/merged into ONE page? I feel that is what should be done. I support merging all crypto into ONE page, but if the decision is some may have their own, then we must be fair to all. Apha 06:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApharionDeSol (talk • contribs)
Note: ApharionDeSol has been indefinitly blocked as a sockpuppet per the results of this SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong keep disagree with this nomination for deletion. worldcoin is much more known that dogecoin peercoin or primecoin. and there has been noteable positive mentions from media. (which the wiki here also listed from MSNBC) almost none other crypto has this kind of mention save bitcoin. also almost ALL exchanges has worldcoin, definitely better known than many altcoins with entries in Wikipedia. Market cap at #8 also speaks for itself. Bzero5 (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Ryan Williams — Bzero5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. 8th highest market capitalization among cryptocurrencies,Ref and plenty of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to meet WP:NCORP. (The promo matter is an editorial thing, I did a bit, and more is needed.) Sam Sailor Sing 01:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What references did you find that you would describe as significant RS coverage? All of the refs in the article don't look like RS to me, and a search turned up some incidental mentions, like nationalreview.com, but a few sentences in an article covering many coins doesn't meet the threshold for significant coverage.Dialectric (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can I offer a link that I feel should be included? http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch/cashing-in-on-bitcoin-111318083837 , this is news coverage of cryptocurrencies on MSNBC, and they mentioned Worldcoin and Litecoin as the most noteable currencies around 3:30 into the video talk by a 3rd party reporter, I feel this is very relevant. ApharionDeSol (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)ApharionDeSol[reply]
Yes, this discussion is a good place to add reliable sources. MSNBC explained ”there are also now a lot of competing currencies, like Litecoin and Worldcoin”, as the screen scrolls over 8 other currencies that do not include worldcoin. It said there were some 60 coins, and joked about their show's made-up coin. “There's Barbecue Coin, Coinye, Sexcoin, and Ron Paul Coin," and explained "...because the brand of Ron Paul Coin is pretty terrible, it's not going to have much value, but for instance, Litecoin and Worldcoin are better known in internet currency, you know, cryptocurrency circles, and therefore they're worth more." These two in-passing mentions do not meet WP:GNG's requirement of “‘Significant coverage’ addresses the topic directly and in detail”. ––Agyle (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the first pass hardly qualify. Agreed. but the second pass is basically MSNBC saying, Litecoin and Worldcoin are better Known. I subjectively believe that strongly qualifies. I mean, it doesn't get as 'black and white as that', a 3rd Party source, a media reporter, saying it is better known than other crypto. I am not qualified to judge the show, but the network is clearly mainstream. Anyway, everyone entitled to their own Opinion. I however feel vindicated with the above broadcast. Apha 06:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApharionDeSol (talk • contribs)


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another non-notable cryptocurrency, the MSNBC video is about bitcoin and only mentions this cryptocurrency. Only claim to fame is being one of many bitcoin competitors. Does not pass WP:GNG. --JamesMoose (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the MSNBC video, Worldcoin was compared to Litecoin in terms of reputation and value retention. Further, at 14million USD capitalization and traded almost on every single Crypto exchange, makes it much more noteable than say, for example Primecoin. A google search will return you with plenty of noteable mentions, therefore I feel when you say "yet another non-notable cryptocurrency", I feel you did not research the situation diligently, Worldcoin might be new, but it is indeed noteable this moment. Can I suggest you review/update your knowledge of the topic, cause calling Worldcoin 'not noetable', is like people saying Tesla wasn't noteable in 2013. Cause you never heard of it, doesn't make it not noteable. Apha 06:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but "Worldcoin was compared to Litecoin in terms of reputation" is not a claim to notability per any Wikipedia guideline. Where are these "plenty of noteable mentions" you speak of? Add them into the article and I'll gladly change my vote. --JamesMoose (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got what you are looking for here. Just to pull out a few. Moneyweek gave a name on name mention. WSJ mentions briefly, and the Chinese government also mentioned it. though you need to use google translate to read that one. There are many other languade mentions, but I don't want to throw you stuff that you might not understand, so I only included the one from chinese gov among other english ones here. I will add this under a 'media mention' section in the article, I would like to change your vote, tell me what else you need.
http://-moneyweek-.com/bitcoin-and-cryptocurrencies-the-new-dotcom-stocks/ (you need to manually take out "-" around moneyweek, can't post that link)
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB40001424052702304607104579210051252568362
http://m.nationalreview.com/article/367412/altcoin-investment-dummies-betsy-woodruff
http://www.zznews.gov.cn/health/jsqy/2014/0110/5695.html
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/01/24/worldcoin-community-funds-well-system-africa/
Apha 07:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The first 3 links are articles about cryptocurrencies in general and only mention Worldcoin. The article from cryptocoinsnews seems to qualify. The last link is a press release, and it may be a translation issue but I wasn't able to find anything about Worldcoin in the Chinese link. If any additional sources such as the cryptocoinsnews link, where a reliable source is covering Worldcoin specifically and not cryptocurrencies in general are found, I will change my vote to keep. --JamesMoose (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad we have this discussion. I am also learning more how wikipedia works too. thanks for teaching me during. Apha 08:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApharionDeSol (talk • contribs)
FYI in the chinese article. Worldcoin is 世界币 (literally world coin), and Bitcoin is 比特币 (this is sound over, Be-Ta Coin), if you don't understand chinese, I suppose you can at least do a search for the world, and you will see they have paragraphs dedicated to Worldcoin about it's design. I will do manual translation for you for the main paragraph, hopefully you will qualify this as important, as this is a .gov.cn mention.. at government level....

按照世界币的设计，世界币将不依靠特定货币机构发行，它通过特定算法的大量计算产生，相比较比特币而言，价值被严重低估，世界币还将通过算法的不断调整，产生货币的数量将逐渐下降，将来势必成为虚拟货币投资的新宠。 Translate: "According to the design of WDC, WDC is independent to Fiat Cash, comparing to Bitcoin, it is extremely undervalue this moment. WDC's value will be continued to be revised, as supply is limited and will deplete, future price will be a new force in Cryptocurrencies. " I just thought news doesn't come as forcefully as that... and that's why WDC price has been going up since China begin to buy despite this week all other Crypto drop in price. (BTC from 830 - 780). Apha 09:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.libertyglobe.com/2013/12/27/making-the-case-for-worldcoin-as-the-next-big-cryptocurrency/
http://readwrite.com/2013/12/03/the-bitcoin-alternative-field-guide
http://www.cryptonews.biz/quarkcoin-vs-megacoin-vs-worldcoin-vs-protoshares-vs-feathercoin/
http://www.coindesk.com/top-altcoins-2013/
http://cryptosource.org/worldcoin-financial-services-announced/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApharionDeSol (talk • contribs) 09:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these on top will also assist your decision. Apha 09:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Apha, English articles are preferred, but Chinese and other languages are okay on Wikipedia. Post URLs of Chinese articles (http://....) and we may understand enough from computer translation. It may be helpful if you can provide information about a source. For example, if a website is published directly by the government, by a well known newspaper, or by a commercial company. 谢谢你们的帮助。––Agyle (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for letting me know, wasn't sure it is allowed. this article is posted in ZhuJiang News, the official province broadcast owned by the chinese governement. http://www.jinronger.com/news/28667 , for your reference, worldcoin translates to 世界币, google translate has some slight problem getting the noun through. Apha 06:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApharionDeSol (talk • contribs)
i would also want to say WDC is probably 5th well known in the trading floors despite being 8th in mark cap. example is namecoin and peercoin both have high cap,but they are sha256 code and share as Bitcoinmining proxy only. if any coin thats not noteable are peer and namecoin. i havr been trading bitcoin for 4 yrs, and i believe my view in crypto is more accurate than most. currently best know is Bitcoin, then Litecoin, then doge cause of how stupid it is. (for now) worldcoin is ranked 4th in reputation in my books. i wont ask u to take my word for it. but do see for yourself. and if u are uncertain you should vote neutral, not delete. dont you think?Bzero5 (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not how well-known the subject is, but whether it has received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. --JamesMoose (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you mean despite seeing more third party sources, your vote remain unchanged then? Alright. thanks for double thinking. Though I really won't have the galls myself to call any of those coveraged not reliable. I find them objective and third party, especially the article about Charity work in Kenya. Though I feel I did my part is trying to persuade you, would had hoped you at least turn neutral. Anyway, let's allow the community to decide. Have a great day sir. Apha 06:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApharionDeSol (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Looks like many good points already covered. WDC is a big thing in china and listed in btc38.com. Further being the 8th largest in Market Cap in a way is already self explanatory, primecoin for example is out of top 10 and actually relatively unknown, with no action from their admin for months, yet they have many wiki mention, if they have an entry, all top 10 market cap should easily qualify, further, every single exchange in the world has Worldcoin, many don't have dogecoin as it is just a bad joke, if any Crypto deserve a mention, it should be Bitcoin/Litecoin/Worldcoin. The market cap is only there because it is noteable, there's no other reason why people will buy something they don't know. Further, the recent actions in philanthropy also got media attention. Let me post some links. I thought this is an easy decision.
http://www.libertyglobe.com/2013/12/27/making-the-case-for-worldcoin-as-the-next-big-cryptocurrency/
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/01/24/worldcoin-community-funds-well-system-africa/
http://worldcoinwell.com

KR 11:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs) — Kevoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Notice - Kevoras is the article creator for Worldcoin and has few edits outside this article. Citation Needed | Talk 13:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice - Citation Needed has been keeping none-noteable crypto in cryptocurrency page, like primecoin and ripple, instead of an actually used crypto, he is also the one that vouched for worldcoin page to be deleted, while keeping pages like dogecoin/ripple alive, suspect conflict of interest? or insufficent knowledge on matter to make any calls, would love to see some creditals for his claims. KR 13:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs)
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but Wikipedia has a strict notability policy which dogecoin, ripple and primecoin fulfill, and that's all that matters here. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
how about these on worldcoin? would you qualify them?
http://www.libertyglobe.com/2013/12/27/making-the-case-for-worldcoin-as-the-next-big-cryptocurrency/
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/01/24/worldcoin-community-funds-well-system-africa/
http://worldcoinwell.com
http://m.nationalreview.com/article/367412/altcoin-investment-dummies-betsy-woodruff
http://readwrite.com/2013/12/03/the-bitcoin-alternative-field-guide
http://www.cryptonews.biz/quarkcoin-vs-megacoin-vs-worldcoin-vs-protoshares-vs-feathercoin/
http://www.coindesk.com/top-altcoins-2013/
http://cryptosource.org/worldcoin-financial-services-announced/
noteably should be no les than quark or ripple, which have near no mention for an extended period, showing they are probably near nonactive. KR 14:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Note: Kevoras has been indefinitly blocked as a sockmaster per the results of this SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - First of all, this article was already deleted once through the AfD process Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WorldCoin. I don't see substantial improvement in the current version and, more importantly, it still fails WP:GNG. The only reasonably reliable sources that I could find (or were mentioned above) are National Review, WSJ and MSNBC. All of them are just incidental mentions which do not count towards WP:GNG. The ZZNews link seems to be dead. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
deletion before is not automatically means you delete again when information is more abundunt. Further, there are more article listed you haven't read. try this one for instant, http://www.libertyglobe.com/2013/12/27/making-the-case-for-worldcoin-as-the-next-big-cryptocurrency/ that's hardly incidental mentions at all. Would suggest you read all link actually before jumping to conclusion? Cheers 14:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs)
Liberty Globe does not look like a reliable source. Furthermore, the article you linked is clearly not news but an rather an opinion piece or a blog post. Quote from the end: "Full disclosure: My holdings include btc, ltc, wdc and a few others. I resurrected this blog to write my thoughts on WDC and crypto. If you wish to donate..." So no, that one most certainly does not count. Please read WP:GNG to save everyone's time. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, I can remove the link if you think it is a blog, how about the rest?
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/01/24/worldcoin-community-funds-well-system-africa/
http://m.nationalreview.com/article/367412/altcoin-investment-dummies-betsy-woodruff
http://readwrite.com/2013/12/03/the-bitcoin-alternative-field-guide
http://www.cryptonews.biz/quarkcoin-vs-megacoin-vs-worldcoin-vs-protoshares-vs-feathercoin/
http://www.coindesk.com/top-altcoins-2013/

112.118.240.26 (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of those only National Review counts as a reliable source, and it has only a passing mention.Smite-Meister (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok. at least one then. how about coindesk or readwrite link? those a very 3rd party source. teach me why it is not qualifying? thanks KR 14:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs)
I have read WP:GNG, and fail to find any violation of the cryptocoinnews/readwrite.com/coindesk.com/nationalreview.com links. Those are third party sources, and all mentions clearly about worldcoin and its existence. Now that it passes GNG, I would like to once again point to the market cap at #8 at around 14million USD, and definitely significant. I understand Wikipedia is about sources to link on the web, and now that we settled that, would you like to talk with me about 'what classify as noteable crypto'? I feel we need to set a standard, else it just be back and forth, and rather unconstructive. I would like to get the facts right, this is what we edittors SHOULD be doing. I would hope you agree with me on that. cheers and thanks. KR 15:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs)
The market cap does not matter at all. There is no separate notability standard for cryptocurrencies, nor should there be. The sources presented so far do not fulfill WP:GNG because (1) a passing mention is not significant coverage, and (2) coindesk, cryptonews, blogs etc. are not reliable sources. Smite-Meister (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the time. and here's where I have a question. Cause Ripple used Coindesk as a source, and appears to have passed being reliable. Coindesk is on the forefront of the cryptohappenings, makes me wonder, if you deem them unreliable, what you deem as reliable? CNN? cause they sure talked about Bitcoins wrong when they first mentioned it. You see what I mean? Other than that, since National Review is already reliable as mentioned by you, why you still don't qualify it from WP:GNG? how many articles you want? give me a number. cause there are new news coming out about South Africa restuarants prefering WDC over Rand. I just might be able to give you want you want. But if National Review already qualify, isn't WP:GNG already met? KR 18:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs)
Kevoras, there is no set number or formula, or we wouldn't have people making these decisions. The strength of the source and the depth of the coverage are both factors. Coindesk would be considered a weaker source, while The Wall Street Journal or The Economic Journal are considered much stronger sources. A two-sentence mention in cryppy-coinzers.biz is worthless, while a full article on Worldcoin in The New York Times would make a very strong case. I'd suggest searching for those long, in-depth articles that are just about Worldcoin, in major print publications. Books, peer-reviewed scholarly journals, and conference proceedings from academic conferences about Worldcoin would also be suitable. ––Agyle (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This subject seems to fail GNG. Wikipedia requires that notability be established by multiple significant mentions in reliable sources. None of the sources with significant mentions have been reliable, and non of the reliable source mentions have been significant (as is often the case with non-notable topics). I will change my vote if two reliable sources that significantly mention worldcoin are presented. Benboy00 (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hi welcome to the discussion, can you tell me how you feel the below links might not be reliable?
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/01/24/worldcoin-community-funds-well-system-africa/
http://m.nationalreview.com/article/367412/altcoin-investment-dummies-betsy-woodruff
http://readwrite.com/2013/12/03/the-bitcoin-alternative-field-guide
http://www.cryptonews.biz/quarkcoin-vs-megacoin-vs-worldcoin-vs-protoshares-vs-feathercoin/
http://www.coindesk.com/top-altcoins-2013/
cause I believe many of these sites are also used as reliable source in other crypto, such as Ripple and Litecoin. KR 18:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Lack of good, reliable sources leaves this cryptocurrency out of GNG. The sock/meatpuppets don't help either. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Move to Draft:Worldcoin. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Suggestion for Draft status is (1) because the previous Worldcoin deletion didn't keep it deleted, whereas draft articles require editorial approval to move from draft back to publication, and (2) it's entirely possible this could become a notable topic. With 140+ cryptocurrencies, each with independent promoters trying to make money convincing people of their "legitimacy", there are ongoing efforts outside of Wikipedia (e.g. Reddit's thread to get Worldcoin on Wikipedia) to create Wikipedia articles to promote them.
Kevoras, please stop posting the those five links repeatedly; once is helpful, more than once is not. My view on the sources:
  • http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ Not a WP:RS in my view; no signs of editorial oversight or review, policies, an editorial board, or an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  • The National Review Online is well known as an opinion/editorial site, but it's possible this was intended as a news piece. Like MSNBC, it says there are more than 60 other cryptocurrencies, including Dogecoin, Litecoin. Worldcoin is mentioned by two interviewees. Fails to meet detailed, in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG.
  • ReadWrite's article opens by saying there are more than 140 different cyptocurrencies, and "here are just a few of them", listing six examples including Worldcoin.
  • Cryptonews.biz Not a WP:RS in my view; no signs of editorial oversight or review, policies, an editorial board, or an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  • Coindesk's article is again a list of six coins, with Worldcoin getting two brief paragraphs.
  • Keep. Links are solid and up to date, Worlcoin has large market capitalization, ranked #8. Coin also unique in community/charity focused, developers looking to bring positive influence to the world. No reason to consider deletion at all. Much less important altcoins appears to have be approved with much less media mention. Good day. MatthewBuchwalder (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Reddit user is directing people to come here and vote keep: [1] --JamesMoose (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the link u post seems benign. but then some comments deleted. do u have screenshot? cause for now the poster who appears to have relation with page creator only askes ppl to help him improve the page. what else was there? or what you trying to pull? Bzero5 (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a screenshot, but I'll vouch for someone having removed content that was on Reddit's page less than twelve hours ago. ––Agyle (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The post is still there, it's the last one down the list "I need around 3-4 users here, going over to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Worldcoin#Worldcoin and support Worldcoin page to stay." --JamesMoose (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you saw it, I take your word for it. Though I cannot see it now, so cannot prove or disprove, though to be honest, I don't think it is wrong to call people to come and improve the page... .... anyway. My vote remains to keep Worldcoin, or merge ALL crypto, Bitcoin included together, it's 1 the other, cannot be unfair when people have the marketcapitalization, I mean, we are in no position to judge that. Apha 06:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApharionDeSol (talk • contribs)
Let me come clean both Reddit (now deleted) and Worldcoin Article was started by me, I was asking people in reddit to offer me links to validate Worldcoin when I was challenged here. I also told them to take a look at the hardship I have in getting this article accepted by more senior editors, my intent was asking for them to come here to tell their story about the community involvement in worldcoin, hence allowing people to see how 'real' worldcoin is. But I see how it can be interpreted as asking for people to rush in, so I deleted the reddit entry. KR 08:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


  • Note actually you missed the Dogecoin post asking people to vote discard. [2] soon that page be deleted but no doubts the sudden surge of people asking to delete came from there. Hope u are not one of them. I was wondering why ppl here refuse to call those media mention reliable despite obviously they are. guess money is involved and i find it disgusting. I still vote keep. Links are more than enough, market cap more thsn enough, charity work noteable. those thinking otherwise might have questionable intentions. thats all i say Bzero5 (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deadlink above. Possible already deleted. But same as above I will take your word for it. Though I cannot prove or disprove the topic. I will disregard these two links from reddit, and rely on Media mention, which I find trustworthy, and market capitalization to support my original vote to Keep. Apha 06:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApharionDeSol (talk • contribs)
Dogecoin did that?? ...... $%^&#&#$&# I won't let it get to me, Worldcoin article here is about facts. and I will just deal with the negativity if dogecoin people wants to vandalise things. KR 08:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Note A lot of these votes look an awful lot like socks, especially the ones that misspell "notable" and have very similar wording. I will ask for sock investigation. Benboy00 (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, while I also misspelled notable on more than 1 occasion, I too suspect some of the people supporting my cause might be socks. This is not what I want. I want the article to be accepted by the Wiki community. and this is clearly not a vote either. Please do what is required to sort this out fairly. While, my vote and my resaons stands, I as the original writer of the article of course want it to be improved and kept. KR 15:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - The "Not a vote" template should be automatically added to all AfD discussions so most of this nonsense could be avoided. Smite-Meister (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment circular arguement between two groups using same points repeatedly. one group keeps saying the links are not reliable subjectively, the other keep saying links are valid and market cap should be considered my two sentence here sums up the whole page. this is not a vote, in the end senior editors always get what they want. so lets just bring them over? Bzero5 (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the citations that meet WP:RS criteria appear to be passing mentions. Gamaliel (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
using my link list on the top of the page, how are links 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 passing mentions? most of them are just talking about Worldcoin. KR 00:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rotten references, and if Cryptocurrency is to be believed that market cap is, er, 1/4 that of dogecoin, which surely has risen to notability largely for the humour value and not because it is likely to ever be traded seriously. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at the references and links provided in the article and here, I don't see anything significant in terms of notable writing about WorldCoin and therefore it doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines. Peacock (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
using my link list on the top of the page, how are links 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 passing mentions? most of them are just talking about Worldcoin. KR 00:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about "passing mentions". I don't see anything significant in terms of notable writing. Peacock (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect While it looks well-referenced, it doesn't look like it is notable. It deserves a passing mention at least somewhere, though. Epicgenius (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cryptocurrency Delete; insufficiently notable for a standalone article. Miniapolis 01:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article cryptocurrency is about cryptocurrency in general, and while it does list some notable cryptocurrencies (i.e. those that are sufficiently notable for standalone articles), there are continuous attempts from promoters of questionably-fraudulent financial schemes to list their schemes and website links in that article. Requiring a merge for non-notable financial promotions doesn't serve Wikipedia's or the public's interest. Agyle (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, you're right. Miniapolis 15:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Note that the External links section with ten references, including the Official Website, has been moved to the talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge to Alt coin  This topic fails wp:notability because wp:notable topics must attract the world's attention "over a period of time".  The Worldcoin Foundation website (primary sources are reliable for statements about themselves) states, "We are a group of Worldcoin supporters who are committed to ensuring the success of the currency."  Ergo, success of the currency is now indeterminate.  The discussion of Sharmbeck is currently not suitable for the encyclopedia as per the policy WP:CRYSTAL.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per below, I support the deletion of the current version of this article.  I have moved the references and categories to the talk page [<clause stricken>].  Unscintillating (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If digital currency and cryptocurrency decided by consensus to not host non-notable currencies and numerous AfDs deemed most non-notable, then making an article for "altcoins" (which is in essence just "alternative cryptocurrency" slang) and adding those entries there seems counter consensus. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think those try to have the page removed here has some questionably-fraudulent financial schemes to remove competition. KR 06:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs)
Comment I have already let my concerns be known on another article about the nominator. The WP:COA is highly relevant due to his involvement with Dogecoin, 4chan, and the VERY expedient request for so many other AfD on the Crypto topic. On another note, please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~) when you are finished typing. Use the "Show Preview" button to ensure that everything is correct before hitting "Save Page". Huey2323 (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why has no one talked about what makes WDC unique? WDC is the fastest crypto out there, likely to be the only one that's adoptable for local merchants on mobile platforms. This info is crucial in defining WDC from the rest. I will include that information in the article. Florence Fafasiu (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i read a comment above saying add this to crypto page. that is a pretty good idea. except for bitcoin maybe all altcoins should just have a section in a Crypto page instead. problem here might have started when coins like litecoin and dogecoin gets a page whereby their notability is actually questionable. looking into the cryptocurrency page i also see lots of people removing description of others, citing borderline reason. how about merge all altcoins into the cryptocurrency page? just a suggestion. have a standard. like, requiring more than 3 exchange listing, daily volume above 50 BTC.. etc. just thinling out loud. if all altcoins are treated fairly i support merger. otherwise i will continue with my keep vote. Bzero5 (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable topic failing WP:GNG with lack of reliable in-depth sources. Alternative coin lists or generic articles about coins (as with previous AfDs), where Worldcoin appears, are not in-depth sources, those are passing mentions or extremely brief generic descriptions. Looking at links above, the only substantial material is from opinion pieces and primary sources. Almost every article argued to be reliable (which by itself isn't enough) deals with multiple currencies and in none of them Worldcoin appears outside a small dedicated paragraph (and often copy paste of features). Market caps or any other niche field-only measure has nothing to do with notability. And definitely not subjective measures like "known", "legit", "reputable", etc. I see a large influx of new editors arguing this point above and only a couple of editors actually addressing the notability guideline. Obviously promotion-driven arguments from pages like this or this are unacceptable and I suspect a great deal of COI. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable train wreck of incomprehensible technical mumbo-jumbo. All those voting "Keep" - I offer you the challenge of rewriting this article in terms that the 80 year old woman who lives down the street from me can understand? (And the phrase "chip and pin" is not in her lexicon). Given this reliable source describes Bitcoin and clones as "great for ... buying child porn, drugs and weapons or paying to get people killed", it's small wonder supporters need to strongly assert it's legal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Find me where in WP:AfD it says that's grounds for deletion. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be comprehensible to everybody but there are plenty of articles on notable topics that aren't, and writing an article on a complex technical topic that everyone can understand is really hard. Rewrite Reed–Solomon error correction in a way your 80 year old neighbor can understand, and I'll argue delete here. Or AfD that article, I dare you. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just by doing a quick search I find articles and mentions without even trying. The article may need cleaned up, but not deleted. Could you give people some time when putting up new articles on these topics? Kevoras starts the article and within an hour and a half Citation Needed is already proposing a deletion. We all know Citation Needed is heavily invested on the Dogecoin article. I believe it meets WP:GNG and is not WP:PROMO. Huey2323 (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has suggested there are no articles that mention Worldcoin. The question of notability centers on the strength of reliable sources that address the topic in detail. There is no minimum duration articles must be given; but for the sake of accuracy, I think this article received quick attention by prominent cross-linking in the article Cryptocurrency 3 hours after it was created, and was nominated for deletion 9 hours after that. ––Agyle (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note I stand corrected, it was ~9 hours. Quick question, who considers the "strength" of reliable sources? It seems that strength is subjective. I have been following Cryptocurrencies for a little while. I have heard of Worldcoin but I never pursued obtaining it or information on it. Although, by doing a quick search I was able to find numerous sources and information about it. I still believe that this article should be kept or at least moved to Draft. Huey2323 (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the very first link posted -- WP:GNG -- it explains exactly what sources qualify for notability standards. Reliable, in-depth, independent. You have to show which sources exactly qualify for this, not just that you found numerous sources and information on it, which by itself doesn't show us that they are reliable, with significant coverage, and independent. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Socks, socks everywhere. The article creator and a passel of sockpuppets have been blocked per the results of this SPI. I've struck the sockpuppet !votes above; I have not struck the sockmaster's vote but have noted it. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - doesn't this qualify for WP:CSD#G5 now since the creator is a sockpuppeteer? Citation Needed | Talk 14:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A page created before the ban or block does not qualify." —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support G5 closure. While it may apply, with this much discussion already given, a conventional decision is preferable. The article could also have been deleted under G4, since it was previously decided to be deleted three months ago, but there is ongoing coverage about the topic that provides a reason for periodic review of its notability. If debate is closed due to G5, someone could petition for another review next week based on new articles published since the first AfD decision. ––Agyle (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
God end or not, G5 is clearly not applicable in this situation, as the User was not blocked when they made this page. While I think this page shouldnt exist, I dont think we should attempt any kind of CSD, as this AfD has had a lot of interest from both sides (not including socks). Benboy00 (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cryptocurrency: Same as I just wrote on Primecoin, we probably don't need a page per stock on each crypto. Just a list/table mention in crypto already good enough, let's not begin the habit of having a page per crypto over 10million USD capitalization. Merge. V-apharmd (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
additional comment. I disagree with the failing of WP:GNG, Yahoo/Google search returns lots of credible material more than just passing mentions. Though I still don't think we need a page for each. Litecoin exception as the 'leading' Altcoin. V-apharmd (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • non-voting Comment I saw a sign at sage fitness website accepting worldcoin. I also did some research and it appears legit. Is there any reason to delete this page? I read some post above about it be not notable, yet it is covered in many media, I m not sure why many users above finds the contrary. And sorry no wiki acct, so I will just my IP here instead for checking. I live in Taiwan. Just want to see how the editors of wiki will say about this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.57.189 (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, by the way. I suggest keeping many people will be searching this topic like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.57.189 (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and a link to my claim. http://www.sagefit.com/
Note: V-apharmd has been indefinitly blocked as a sockpuppet per the results of this SPI. Benboy00 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me see can I do a service here, feel free to discuss, agree or disagree or elaborate. always assume WP:AGF pls.
* Notability. We see an amount of people calling it non-notable. However http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_01_30/Worldcoin-speed-of-transactions-5546/ (strong) http://m.nationalreview.com/article/367412/altcoin-investment-dummies-betsy-woodruff (medium strength) http://www.coindesk.com/top-altcoins-2013/ (weak, but valid) http://venturebeat.com/2014/01/26/bitcoin-payments-will-face-big-challenges-heading-to-brick-and-mortar-but-itll-get-there/ (strong source, but not title mention. Dogecoin/Coinye people appears to use this as one of their strongest sources, which makes it apply.) http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/01/24/worldcoin-community-funds-well-system-africa/ (weak source, but very focused mention.) These media topics appears to prove otherwise. as such, cannot pull WP:GNG, which already makes the original reason for deletion invalid.
* Market Capitalization Something we don't really care here, nor have rules to call for it, inconsequential. Only adds to the fact the commodity here has legitimacy.
* Author banned. True. However from the history, I see it was Sam Sailor that did most of the final editting, and various users already heavily editted the original. disagree with G5, doeant apply.
* Ultracoin Composite Index If you don't know what it is, try googling it, or just read this: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-02-03/introducing-ultracoin-cryptocurrency-composite-index basically this is a list of significant crypto put into a basket by a hedgefund, these people certainly know more about Crypto than most of us, and their basket of Crypto might be a good objective view on what Cryptocurrency should be mentioned, and what not. This point here, also serves to fulfill my point that WP:GNG probably doesn't apply here. However, note this index appears to value by market capitalization, and have contributions from many. Which leads me to my next point.
* Necessity. this is where I feel is the strongest debate can happen. Do we really need a page PER Crypto over 10million USD? This might never end, same with Dogecoin, primecoin, peercoin, namecoin, etc.
Conclusion 1 : cannot delete this page base of WP:GNG, WP:PROMO, Neither case is strong or evident.
Conclusion 2 : Suggest Merge with Cryptocurrency page's list. Or Bring this to the talk page for consensus, when agreed, then we delete this entry, put into notable cryptocurrency there.
Let's hear it from both sides. Keep it civil. V-apharmd (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: V-apharmd has been indefinitly blocked as a sockpuppet per the results of this SPI. Benboy00 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk Good observation. I too agree it be better and it be more convincing if there are even stronger media mentions, such as Businessweek, Wallstreet Journal or BBC. Though it is still what it is, a published article in the Voice of Russia, as such, hard to say non-notable either. My subjective view. Please supplement. V-apharmd (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in full agreement, with your statement, "Worldcoin seems to be potentially notable in one respect, speed, and doesn't really need more than a line written about it. " And hence is my conclusion above to merge it in cryptocurrency instead once consensus reached on their talk page. This worldcoin page might serve as interim solution til consensus met there, but I really don't feel the need for each Crypto to have their own mention, this is wikipedia, not coindesk, and this goes for all crypto pages, except bitcoin. My view only. The tough part is getting editors to agree from the cryptocurrency page, might take a while. V-apharmd (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: V-apharmd has been indefinitly blocked as a sockpuppet per the results of this SPI. Benboy00 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call me paranoid, but another new user created a day after the sock block and straight into the AfD with the same arguments and even writing style as Kevoras, and somehow way more familiar with links and reasons than any new AfD user, picking the same links in the same order as Kevoras, in addition suspiciously insistent on AGF and civility even though nobody has acted contrary as well as stating biased closing arguments as only options. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, V. suspicious. User made over 50 edits on the day the account was created (today), one of the first being in the primecoin debate, and now in this debate. User is very familiar with wikipedia policies and formatting etc, and so is almost certainly not a newbie. Could be a long time IP editor, but I'll submit the name to the sock investigation anyway, and if they turn out not to be a sock, then no harm done. I should note though, that its not appropriate to add section headers to AfD's, especially section headers which lend undue authority to certain points of view. Benboy00 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 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.
  1. ^ http://scharmbeck.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Worldcoin&oldid=1138717143"