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.
References do not show notability according to wikipedia standards. Minor mentions in large lists of coins, non-independent and non-reliable sources
HoopJumper (
talk) 14:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)reply
KeepArs Technica,
MIT Technology Review and
Wired are three citations from the article that address Peercoin (or PPCoin, as it was once known) directly, and in detail. They're independent secondary sources, and seem to be reliable. Some of the content in the article may need to be better sourced (or removed), but the article itself seems to pretty clearly meet GNG.
Breadblade (
talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - subject has coverage in independent and reliable sources, namely Breadblade's listed sources, and others (such as
New York Times Dealbook and
Equities). While it's true that many sources list Peercoin only in passing, but it is still a major point in several sources regarding cryptocurrencies in general. ~
SuperHamsterTalkContribs 00:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep There are clearly well respected sources as listed above by Breadblade as well as what seems to be a bit of academic notability (even if the author had a hand in it), but this is barely enough for me to vote in favor of keeping this article. If we can find more sources, it's good to go.
Citation Needed |
Talk 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (
talk) 05:37, 5 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.
References do not show notability according to wikipedia standards. Minor mentions in large lists of coins, non-independent and non-reliable sources
HoopJumper (
talk) 14:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)reply
KeepArs Technica,
MIT Technology Review and
Wired are three citations from the article that address Peercoin (or PPCoin, as it was once known) directly, and in detail. They're independent secondary sources, and seem to be reliable. Some of the content in the article may need to be better sourced (or removed), but the article itself seems to pretty clearly meet GNG.
Breadblade (
talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - subject has coverage in independent and reliable sources, namely Breadblade's listed sources, and others (such as
New York Times Dealbook and
Equities). While it's true that many sources list Peercoin only in passing, but it is still a major point in several sources regarding cryptocurrencies in general. ~
SuperHamsterTalkContribs 00:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep There are clearly well respected sources as listed above by Breadblade as well as what seems to be a bit of academic notability (even if the author had a hand in it), but this is barely enough for me to vote in favor of keeping this article. If we can find more sources, it's good to go.
Citation Needed |
Talk 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (
talk) 05:37, 5 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.