Neucoin is a new crypto that has the proper backing to be considered a respectable altcoin and have it's own page. Upon a brief message with the admin who speedily deleted it I was told that he believed it to be another ponzi scheme not worth noting. But in truth all currency are ponzi schemes. Trusted currency come about through people giving them out and saying it's worth X and then said people governments minting more. I put up seven links which show that the coin isn't just another ponzi scheme. If need be I can remove the word successful, that was referring to the founders, and a few other words which are quite arguably defended in the articles. Crypto is a new age thing and I think it was deleted by an admin who doesn't realize cryptos potential. Darteous (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's customary to consult with the administrator who deleted a page before listing at DRV. The page was deleted by User:FreeRangeFrog but your contribution history doesn't include any discussions with that user. Please can you explain further? Stifle (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to my talk section the admin who deleted it was User:DanielRigal. Whom I got in contact with on his talk section. It's towards the bottom of his talk page. If you want I can contact FreeRangeFrog as well. The two coins that Neu most closely resembles is BLKcoin and NXTcoin, both of which have wikipedia pages. Now I am not a professional coder/developer and am in no way paid for doing this so it isn't the most professional looking. But I do plan to work at it. And I'm sure other members of the Neu community will be interested in working on having a wikipedia page for it as well. But I figured informative information even if it's not beautifully coded is better than nothing for the time being. Darteous (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, he was simply the editor who nominated it for deletion, though he has explained on his talk page why he did so. The product's "backing" or "support" is irrelevant, really. What you need to demonstrate is that the subject in question meets our inclusion criteria. That usually means providing instances of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If you can provide as much then there might be something to consider here. Tone can be fixed, but a lack of notability can not. St★lwart111 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Obviously. Was the G11 tag added by DanielRigal appropriate? Yes. Was the subsequent deletion appropriate? Yes. Is this thing actually notable? I have no idea. The deletion wasn't due to a lack of asserted importance. It was the tone of the article that got it deleted. The creator makes the argument that we simply don't know how important Neucoin is, but that's not the point of the DRV since that's not the reason it was deleted. I would have had no problem restoring this to draft, sticking an AFC banner on top and letting them work on it if they had asked me in the first place. But here we are. So the question is, is Neucoin actually notable? The sources in the article to me indicate it isn't, because aside from links to its own website and one Techcrunch article, it included coverage by sources that do little more than discuss cryptocurrency. If we're discussing notability and this was at AFD, I'd be looking for wider and deeper coverage than what was originally there, which is a hallmark of the truly notable subjects in this area like Dogecoin or Primecoin. If the creator can provide that and there is consensus that it's enough then I guess restoration can move forward. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, G11 was right on the money. I very much doubt that this particular altcoin will qualify for an article any time soon, given the paucity of care on the Internet from those unaffiliated with it. Lankiveil(speak to me) 14:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Deletion under {{db-spam}} was within discretion because of the article's tone:
The coin has a number of financial and coding advisers to make sure things are done well. Neucoin is quickly gaining acceptance in the PoS community. The coin was worked on for a year before being announced to the public.
For any wishing to join/learn more about the community they should go to the forum. http://forum.neucoin.org/
But I would have preferred that the reviewing admin just stubify the article (e.g. the first sentence is not promotional; the first few sentences are fine). For example:
Neucoin is a new cryptocurrency that was first announced in February 2015. It is a fork from Peercoin and is thus a PoS (Proof of Stake coin) that pays interest as you stake it. Its presale is to start April 2015 and last one month, its initial price will be one cent. The currency is expected to launch in the summer of 2015. The currency has a team of ten founders of backgrounds in various industries, as well as a million dollars in investment from angel investors.
TechCrunch and VentureBeat are sources from outside the cryptocurrency community, indicating that the subject is notable. Cunard (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse given the googlecache version then yes the article was promotional and would have needed a pretty fundamental rewrite. As always with such deletions that's about the version which was deleted and isn't indicative of if a decent version could be written. It's up to those wanting such and article to write the decent version. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that information Cunard I will do a rewrite. Is it best to ask FreeRangeFrog to give me what I already wrote up back and do extensive editting/adding or would it be better that I do an entirely new write-up. Sorry that I did not go to you first Freerangefrog, I am new to Wiki and didn't see anywhere saying who the person who deleted it just the post on my page from DanielRigel. Also I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I was a bit busy and got two blocks put on my IP, for my using a VPN and I didn't have time to read through how to remove them.Darteous (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I created a stubified version at Draft:NeuCoin. I ask the closing admin to history merge Neucoin and Draft:NeuCoin and move the article to NeuCoin (capital "C").
