- 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 procedural keep and refrain from renominating for three months. WP:SNOW There is and is going to continue to be (during any putative duration of this AfD) consensus to keep, leaving this open would be pointy. There was also some discussion of the putative prematurity of this fifth nomination, with four editors indicating too soon, and three of those four directly or indirectly quantifying that in the vicinity of three months. Based on the lack of any explicit opposition, and at best only a single implied opinion that this isn't premature, I find a consensus to leave this be with respect to AfD nominations for three months. j⚛e decker talk 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Primecoin
AfDs for this article:
- Primecoin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This coin has been under the gun for many reasons. I genuinely believe this coin to fail WP:GNG. People can bring up muh chain records, muh market cap, or any other trivial thing as a excuse to keep it on Wikipedia all they want, but none of that demonstrates true notability per guidelines. Citation Needed | Talk 00:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I feel that having this discussion every month is pretty excessive and unnecessary within the short time frame; it's shown to be the same discussion and same outcome every time. I suppose until there's a clear keep/delete consensus that discussion can continue, but I dislike excessively discussing at the tax of the community's time. But that's beside the point. Anyway, I argued to delete back in February, though now I'm leaning towards keep. Primecoin has become more notable in the last few months, particularly within the cryptocoin community. In terms of notability in the mainstream media, as covered in previous discussions, there's coverage of it by The Register ( [1] [2]), and then brief mentions and coverage by Forbes, The Guardian, and Ars Technica. Primecoin also received coverage in this book, which lists and extensively goes into the coin alongside other notable coins, such as Bitcoin or Litecoin. While not substantial, the combined coverage of the coin gives it some notability. Within the coin community, the subject has seen a rise in coverage, with mentions by CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine, both decently reputable and notable within the cryptocoin community. In addition to the references listed in the article and links brought up in previous AfDs, recent coverage includes CoinDesk's coverage of Primecoin in relation to energy usage, along with another brief mention by CoinDesk and a bit of coverage by Bitcoin Magazine. While coverage isn't too extensive, I believe there is enough coverage both inside-and-out of the cryptocoin community to make it notable. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 02:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep The last AfD ended less than a month ago and has undergone five nominations since December (which is incredibly excessive). This article has several legitimate sources, so I don't see the harm in giving it a few months before sending it through yet another AfD. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep for now, next month, and the month after that.... Joking aside the continued nominations are a bit much!, Anyway Keep per SuperHamster - Passes GNG. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 03:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep - why are we here for the fifth time in four months, sixth if you include the re-listing of the first nomination. This article should now be given at least three months before re-nominating. Jonpatterns ( talk) 14:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Topic has coverage -> Notable. -- do ncr am 23:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. (as above) Topic has coverage => Notable. I read the article because I wanted to know more about Primecoin. So the Wikipedia entry was useful for me, and would probably be useful for others. --Ben Best 20:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Nice amount of source coverage. — Cirt ( talk) 03:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural keep - These constant repeated nominations of these articles are a waste of time and possibly an abuse of the AfD process. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 11:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 6 May 2014 (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 procedural keep and refrain from renominating for three months. WP:SNOW There is and is going to continue to be (during any putative duration of this AfD) consensus to keep, leaving this open would be pointy. There was also some discussion of the putative prematurity of this fifth nomination, with four editors indicating too soon, and three of those four directly or indirectly quantifying that in the vicinity of three months. Based on the lack of any explicit opposition, and at best only a single implied opinion that this isn't premature, I find a consensus to leave this be with respect to AfD nominations for three months. j⚛e decker talk 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Primecoin
AfDs for this article:
- Primecoin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This coin has been under the gun for many reasons. I genuinely believe this coin to fail WP:GNG. People can bring up muh chain records, muh market cap, or any other trivial thing as a excuse to keep it on Wikipedia all they want, but none of that demonstrates true notability per guidelines. Citation Needed | Talk 00:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I feel that having this discussion every month is pretty excessive and unnecessary within the short time frame; it's shown to be the same discussion and same outcome every time. I suppose until there's a clear keep/delete consensus that discussion can continue, but I dislike excessively discussing at the tax of the community's time. But that's beside the point. Anyway, I argued to delete back in February, though now I'm leaning towards keep. Primecoin has become more notable in the last few months, particularly within the cryptocoin community. In terms of notability in the mainstream media, as covered in previous discussions, there's coverage of it by The Register ( [1] [2]), and then brief mentions and coverage by Forbes, The Guardian, and Ars Technica. Primecoin also received coverage in this book, which lists and extensively goes into the coin alongside other notable coins, such as Bitcoin or Litecoin. While not substantial, the combined coverage of the coin gives it some notability. Within the coin community, the subject has seen a rise in coverage, with mentions by CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine, both decently reputable and notable within the cryptocoin community. In addition to the references listed in the article and links brought up in previous AfDs, recent coverage includes CoinDesk's coverage of Primecoin in relation to energy usage, along with another brief mention by CoinDesk and a bit of coverage by Bitcoin Magazine. While coverage isn't too extensive, I believe there is enough coverage both inside-and-out of the cryptocoin community to make it notable. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 02:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep The last AfD ended less than a month ago and has undergone five nominations since December (which is incredibly excessive). This article has several legitimate sources, so I don't see the harm in giving it a few months before sending it through yet another AfD. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep for now, next month, and the month after that.... Joking aside the continued nominations are a bit much!, Anyway Keep per SuperHamster - Passes GNG. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 03:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep - why are we here for the fifth time in four months, sixth if you include the re-listing of the first nomination. This article should now be given at least three months before re-nominating. Jonpatterns ( talk) 14:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Topic has coverage -> Notable. -- do ncr am 23:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. (as above) Topic has coverage => Notable. I read the article because I wanted to know more about Primecoin. So the Wikipedia entry was useful for me, and would probably be useful for others. --Ben Best 20:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Nice amount of source coverage. — Cirt ( talk) 03:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural keep - These constant repeated nominations of these articles are a waste of time and possibly an abuse of the AfD process. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 11:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 6 May 2014 (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.