- 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 no consensus. Michig ( talk) 07:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
NEM - New Economy Movement
- NEM - New Economy Movement ( | 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. Only coverage of the subject by a reliable source independent of the subject (per GNG) is VICE motherboard, all other sources are not reliable, or not independent. The Yahoo Finance reference is paid press release. ☃ Unicodesnowman ( talk) 04:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep - the only reliable source may be VICE motherboard, but it discusses the subject at length, so in my view it is enough to pass WP:ORG. Now, one could discuss whether VICE is really a sufficient proof of notability... Tigraan ( talk) 10:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep - Note 4: Cointelegraph source is reliable.
- Weak keep - it has a 'reliable' source, ie the VICE article. Jonpatterns ( talk) 11:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Is a singular reliable source sufficient for notability? I was under the impression that an article must be covered by multiple reliable sources. ☃ Unicodesnowman ( talk) 12:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep - reliable source is provided, and WP:SIGCOV doesn't explicitly require more than one. -- ZimZalaBim talk 16:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources...", so yes, WP:SIGCOV, does explicitly require more than one. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- And it also notes: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". -- ZimZalaBim talk 14:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 06:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 06:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Pure WP:ADMASQ. Everybody and their kid brother is marketing a "better-than-Bitcoin" altcoin now (as one of the dubious sources in the article attests), and needs Wikipedia to herd in the suckers for the ol' pump-n-dump. Pax 09:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete As per above. Unfinished software project by pseudonymous contributors not notable even if it interested a Vice tech blogger. Article was written by new Single Purpose Accounts, and the one notable third party reference mentions the project's history of sockpuppetry... Dtellett ( talk) 20:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep - I am one of the people that have been working on the page and you can see that I am not a Single Purpose Account as I have been a big reader and sometimes editor of wiki articles for 9 years. I do realize that the page is weak right now and that the sources aren't that great. That being said, it is a very new wiki page and a lot of people including myself haven't had time to get it to nearly as high standards as I would have liked. I just recently found out it was on the delete list. There have also been some excited people, Wikipedia newbies that aren't familiar with wiki rules that did write it like an advertisement and I tried to take all those parts out with only leaving the facts. I will right now go through the article and try to clean it up some more after posting this if I can find more advertisement material. Additionally, some more news articles from more reputable sources should come at the end of this month. And while it isn't exactly a finished software right now, it has had an open beta testing phase that has been running for more than 8 months, all of that time just working out very small bugs and adding features. All the time the source code has been available for people to review. And before the end of this month it will officially launch. To those points, I kindly ask that instead of just deleting the page right now, that a few weeks are given and by the end of the month if I don't have it cleaned up and up to wiki standards, then I will not contest a deletion. Jeff.t.mcdonald ( talk) 16:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have gone through and removed all the references that refer to it as "revolutionary" or "innovative". I have removed content where it is compared to other platforms in an attempt to one up them. Lastly I have removed some of the more questionable citations. It reads pretty objectively to me now and just states facts. Again, I am sure by the end of the month, this article can be edited to much better standards if a little bit of time is granted. Jeff.t.mcdonald ( talk) 16:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- 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 no consensus. Michig ( talk) 07:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
NEM - New Economy Movement
- NEM - New Economy Movement ( | 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. Only coverage of the subject by a reliable source independent of the subject (per GNG) is VICE motherboard, all other sources are not reliable, or not independent. The Yahoo Finance reference is paid press release. ☃ Unicodesnowman ( talk) 04:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep - the only reliable source may be VICE motherboard, but it discusses the subject at length, so in my view it is enough to pass WP:ORG. Now, one could discuss whether VICE is really a sufficient proof of notability... Tigraan ( talk) 10:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep - Note 4: Cointelegraph source is reliable.
- Weak keep - it has a 'reliable' source, ie the VICE article. Jonpatterns ( talk) 11:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Is a singular reliable source sufficient for notability? I was under the impression that an article must be covered by multiple reliable sources. ☃ Unicodesnowman ( talk) 12:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep - reliable source is provided, and WP:SIGCOV doesn't explicitly require more than one. -- ZimZalaBim talk 16:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources...", so yes, WP:SIGCOV, does explicitly require more than one. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- And it also notes: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". -- ZimZalaBim talk 14:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 06:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 06:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Pure WP:ADMASQ. Everybody and their kid brother is marketing a "better-than-Bitcoin" altcoin now (as one of the dubious sources in the article attests), and needs Wikipedia to herd in the suckers for the ol' pump-n-dump. Pax 09:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete As per above. Unfinished software project by pseudonymous contributors not notable even if it interested a Vice tech blogger. Article was written by new Single Purpose Accounts, and the one notable third party reference mentions the project's history of sockpuppetry... Dtellett ( talk) 20:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep - I am one of the people that have been working on the page and you can see that I am not a Single Purpose Account as I have been a big reader and sometimes editor of wiki articles for 9 years. I do realize that the page is weak right now and that the sources aren't that great. That being said, it is a very new wiki page and a lot of people including myself haven't had time to get it to nearly as high standards as I would have liked. I just recently found out it was on the delete list. There have also been some excited people, Wikipedia newbies that aren't familiar with wiki rules that did write it like an advertisement and I tried to take all those parts out with only leaving the facts. I will right now go through the article and try to clean it up some more after posting this if I can find more advertisement material. Additionally, some more news articles from more reputable sources should come at the end of this month. And while it isn't exactly a finished software right now, it has had an open beta testing phase that has been running for more than 8 months, all of that time just working out very small bugs and adding features. All the time the source code has been available for people to review. And before the end of this month it will officially launch. To those points, I kindly ask that instead of just deleting the page right now, that a few weeks are given and by the end of the month if I don't have it cleaned up and up to wiki standards, then I will not contest a deletion. Jeff.t.mcdonald ( talk) 16:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have gone through and removed all the references that refer to it as "revolutionary" or "innovative". I have removed content where it is compared to other platforms in an attempt to one up them. Lastly I have removed some of the more questionable citations. It reads pretty objectively to me now and just states facts. Again, I am sure by the end of the month, this article can be edited to much better standards if a little bit of time is granted. Jeff.t.mcdonald ( talk) 16:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- 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.