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. Sandstein 20:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search reveals PR, forum posts and blogs, this
heavy.com article, but not enough significant RS coverage to establish notability. Article was created by an
SPA as possibly promotional.
Dialectric (
talk) 12:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - I can confirm Dialectric's findings above. No notability. Also, heavy.com should not be considered a serious news source.
Smite-Meister (
talk) 14:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete fails GNG per nom. KonveyorBelt 17:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete fails notability by
WP:GNG,
WP:CORP, or
WP:WEBSITE. I might consider
heavy.com as a weak reliable source, as these styles of “online tabloid journalism” typically seem to employ editors and writers, and I am not aware of their posting articles as unlabeled paid placement; however, by itself, it doesn't establish notability. The only clearly reliable sources I found that mention datacoin are posting a press release. ––
Agyle (
talk) 17:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Move to
Draft:Datacoin as
WP:TOOSOON. There's no reason to hide to remove this content from view, as it doesn't contain COPYVIO nor BLP stuff, but it lacks verifiability. Some of the content may be useful for an article about
alternate diginal coins, though, which is a notable topic.
Diego (
talk) 12:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Agree and this doesn't conflict with delete votes above, besides potentially isn't enough to request deletion. --
Rezonansowy (
talk •
contribs) 18:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: no guidelines in place currently cover moves from afd to draft. I suggest such moves only be considered when the article in question meets the
Incubation criteria set by the Article Incubator project, as it is substantially similar to draft. Datacoin does not appear to meet this criteria.
Dialectric (
talk) 07:11, 26 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.
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. Sandstein 20:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search reveals PR, forum posts and blogs, this
heavy.com article, but not enough significant RS coverage to establish notability. Article was created by an
SPA as possibly promotional.
Dialectric (
talk) 12:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - I can confirm Dialectric's findings above. No notability. Also, heavy.com should not be considered a serious news source.
Smite-Meister (
talk) 14:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete fails GNG per nom. KonveyorBelt 17:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete fails notability by
WP:GNG,
WP:CORP, or
WP:WEBSITE. I might consider
heavy.com as a weak reliable source, as these styles of “online tabloid journalism” typically seem to employ editors and writers, and I am not aware of their posting articles as unlabeled paid placement; however, by itself, it doesn't establish notability. The only clearly reliable sources I found that mention datacoin are posting a press release. ––
Agyle (
talk) 17:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Move to
Draft:Datacoin as
WP:TOOSOON. There's no reason to hide to remove this content from view, as it doesn't contain COPYVIO nor BLP stuff, but it lacks verifiability. Some of the content may be useful for an article about
alternate diginal coins, though, which is a notable topic.
Diego (
talk) 12:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Agree and this doesn't conflict with delete votes above, besides potentially isn't enough to request deletion. --
Rezonansowy (
talk •
contribs) 18:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: no guidelines in place currently cover moves from afd to draft. I suggest such moves only be considered when the article in question meets the
Incubation criteria set by the Article Incubator project, as it is substantially similar to draft. Datacoin does not appear to meet this criteria.
Dialectric (
talk) 07:11, 26 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.