Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogecoin

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 role of a closing admin is to judge a discussion for consensus, based on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments, ignoring any comments that offer nothing more than I don't like it or similarly They don't like it, with appropriate weights given to different comments with regards to the obvious meatpuppetry that has affected this discussion. As such, I am moved to discount comments from at least half of this discussion. At which point, I am left with about 2:1 comments in favour of keeping the articles, most of which citing sources published after the article was nominated for deletion as evidence of satisfying GNG. On this basis, without prejudice to any future proposal for possible merging, and noting the strongest possible objection to the personal attacks, off-site outing and harassment that has been directed at the nominator, the result is (sadly) keep. -- KTC (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dogecoin

Dogecoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject appears non-notable. Sources restricted to blogs. Note what may be meatpuppetry occuring on the talk page. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment The user, Atomicthumbs, who nominated this article for deletion is a known troll. A screenshot of his post is visible here. The actual post is on the SomethingAwful YOSPOS forum, a known computer trolling forum. The actual post is here which may not be visible without an account. I'm going to break down your own arguments and then attempt to refute them individually.
YOSPOS isn't a trolling forum, it's a computer forum. Are you for real? This has nothing to do with anything, either. If there's a valid reason for deleting or merging the article, it should be allowed to happen whether it was nominated by Jesus Christ or Pol Pot.ZigSaw 21:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Argument #1: "The subject appears non-notable".
      This is probably the strongest argument against the doge wikipedia article as of yet. But there are already articles written about in on large websites such as heavy.com and dailydot.com. Judging how notable a subject like this is can be hard, but let's assume for a second that the amount of hits on google can be some sort of assessment of how notable a term is. If you search for "dogecoin" you get 119.000 results. If you search for another cryptocurrency like "peercoin" which has a wikipedia article you get 164.000 results. That's not a very large difference. And Peercoin has been out since 12 August 2012, while dogecoin was released December 6th, 2013..
    • "Sources restricted to blogs."
      This is not true.
      Coinmarketcap.com listed doge with a 3.5 million dollar market cap. Not sure why there is even a discussion on this articles deletion. Obviously this alt coin is bigger than 80% of the others on the market in way less time.
Maybe the moderator is just confused, or doesn't know enough about crypto currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.183.161 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Moderator"? Coming unsigned from an IP address with no other edits, this seems like a troll comment. That aside: what is "coinmarketcap.com"? Some random website on the Internet (#wow #whoa) that everyone is supposed to take as gospel because of reasons? This is actually quite a bit less reliable than Buzzfeed. ZigSaw 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia article about heavy.com label it as a broadband entertainment website founded in 1999 in New York City. Clearly not a blog. The Alexa rank for heavy.com is 2,882.
"Broadband entertainment"? Oh, it was founded in New York City, that definitely means it's not a blog. What? ZigSaw 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The daily dot has this article about dogecoin: http://www.dailydot.com/business/shibe-meme-dogecoin-currency/
The wikipedia article about The daily dot label it as "an online newspaper that covers internet topics. It aims to be the "hometown newspaper" of the internet.[1][2] It has a 25 member editorial staff.". Clearly not a blog. Alexa rank: 11,716
Digital trends has this article about dogecoin: http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/wow-dogecoin-bitcoin/
The wikipedia article about Digital Trends label it as a "high-tech lifestyle, technology news and information website that publishes news, reviews, guides, how-to articles, descriptive videos and podcasts about technology and consumer electronics products". Alexa rank: 1,842
Wholly irrelevant. If this is a metric of reliability, then I'll just post "Dogecoin is non-notable" on Facebook and cite it as a source (because I mean, just look at Facebook's Alexa rank!) ZigSaw 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Note what may be meatpuppetry occuring on the talk page"
This may or may not be true. Assuming this is true, perhaps a lockdown of the article is a better approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.62.142 (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa rank is irrelevant when determining whether a source is reliable. An article needs reliable sources to establish notability, and this article has none, likely because the subject is not notable. Heavy.com, The Daily Dot, and Digital Trends are not reliable news organizations. Please see WP:NEWSORG. Additionally, search engine hits should never be relied upon to prove notability (see WP:HITS). atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Geek.com has written an article about dogecoin (http://www.geek.com/apps/the-best-invention-on-the-internet-dogecoin-a-more-viable-alternative-to-bitcoin-1579442/), which is a more reputable news source than the others listed. This source appears in Google News search results. 50.53.107.121 (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Geek.com's article says it's a weblog. Make of that what you will. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dogecoin was listed along with other cryptocurrencies in an article for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://triblive.com/business/brownebusiness/5224450-74/bitcoin-currency-gold#axzz2nVURDtM8 50.53.107.121 (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A mention in a list in a freelance columnist's column is not sufficient to establish significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a lot more coverage over this article by valid sources recently, just look into it, its certainly developing. kiaton (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Where? Link to them. "Trees can totally talk and jump over stuff and use firearms, there are millions of verifiable sources that confirm this, just look into it, it's developing." ZigSaw 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is the nominator being "non-neutral"? By not spending a week dredging up nonexistent sources before nominating an article for deletion? Since when is nominating an article for deletion indicative of horrifying, spiteful, trollishtrollishTROLLISH bias against it? ZigSaw 22:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Atomicthumbs holds a sizeable holding in a competing currency... ! ;-) Mathmo Talk 14:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks don't make for useful deletion discussions. Keep it to policy. Breadblade (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a specific concept that requires significant coverage in a reliable source such as a news organization. Again, I don't think any of these qualify. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to ignore million dollar plus websites (yes, check out what they've been sold as) being run by a sizeable paid staff of writers? They're certainly significant. Mathmo Talk 14:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me more about how the dollar value of a web site determines its reliability, its commitment to fact-checking, and its lack of bias? Snapchat was valued at $3 billion, so if I send you a picture of myself flipping off this article with a little speech bubble that says "totally non-notable!" will you reverse your opinion? ZigSaw 22:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now we've got The Verge covering Dogecoin: http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/16/5216862/bitcoin-is-so-2013-dogecoin-is-new-crypto-currency-on-the-block The list of notable sources covering Dogecoin just keeps on growing! (which means this news will spread to many many more: http://www.complex.com/tech/2013/12/dogecoin-on-reddit) Mathmo Talk 20:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - many sources have been posted above. "I don't think any of these qualify" is not a reason to disregard them and delete the article. This is a clearly well known currency that has heavy coverage on many websites. --184.89.155.98 (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that it doesn't matter 'how' many websites something has been covered on; if none of them are a reliable source (which has a well-defined definition on Wikipedia), the subject is not notable. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - it may prove transient and ephemeral but it’s too soon to tell. At one point, that was also true of Wikipedia. In the meantime, It’s hilarious; which seems a good argument to me. Tim Bray (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atomicthumbs is a Reddit user who just happens to not like DogeCoin and cryptocurrency in general, as you can see Here and here if he happens to remove his previous comments. Seeing as how this new information has come to light, I recommend the proposal be denied. The article stays. personal views do not give you the right to delete a wikipedia entry, I might dislike Hitler but it does not give me the right to delete Hitler's wikipedia page. 08:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.150.12 (talk)
    • Great post, thank you for this. This is a really, really clear conflict of interest. Atomicthumbs is a moderator of /r/shibe (the meme that Dogecoin is based on) and clearly has a personal vendetta, going around reddit and doing things like linking to the Wikipedia page on Monopoly Money when Dogecoin is mentioned. 184.89.155.98 (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm not sure that being a Reddit user counts as a "conflict of interest". Second, "has a conflict of interest" does not mean "is automatically wrong about everything". This line of argument is specious at best, and disingenuous at worst. ZigSaw 22:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the article on monopoly money because the person in question (who was probably not from the United States) seemed to be interpreting the phrase (when someone else used it) as talking about money with an economic monopoly.

Taking my comments elsewhere out of context does not help your case, and does not help the fact that the subject of this article is not notable according to Wikipedia's standards. I am following procedure here; I want to keep Wikipedia a good, high-quality place to learn about things. (How does my participation in a meme site represent a conflict of interest in regards to a cryptocurrency article, anyway? If that's a conflict of interest, wouldn't actually using the cryptocurrency in question be more of a conflict of interest?)

In any case, the purpose for the AfD process is for Wikipedia users to reach a consensus. If people agree that it should stay, it stays! (And if you can find any reliable source for the article, instead of taking your time to allege a conflict of interest where none exists, it would help the article a great deal.) atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the moderator of /r/shibe then that very clearly opens you up to a huge huge huge case of COI. And this whole AfD should be rethought. Mathmo Talk 14:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On top of the COI thanks to reddit comments, perhaps Atomicthumb would like to explain why up until July of 2012 he was a member of the "Wikipedians against notability", which openly states that deletions based on notability harm wikipedia? His argument here goes directly inverse to the morals of the groups he is a part of. This is straight up, pure and simple, a vote put up in bad faith to push an agenda. 184.89.155.98 (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GF Breadblade (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What "agenda"? Can you explain what ancient conspiracy is being advanced by the deletion of this article? One one hand, the nominator's posts are in no way indicative of a "vendetta" beyond a wish to have an article deleted. On the other hand, they have nothing to do with the deletion anyway. Please stop trying to make the debate about random off-site drama. ZigSaw 22:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject is definitely notable, as Dogecoin is the 4th most mined scrypt based currency and this rate is increasing quickly. The sources seem to be reliable to me. Can we have some explanation as to why the sources given above are not considered "reliable sources"? They appear to meet at least some of the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.142.81.144 (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained on this page why the sources are not notable. In addition, the mining rate of the cryptocurrency does also not constitute notability, which has a specific definition on Wikipedia. If I created, say, Cosbycoin, a scrypt currency with a very low and unchanging difficulty and no limit on coins mined, and it rapidly rocketed to the top of the cryptocurrency mining rate charts, this would not make it notable. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You actually have not explained why the sources are not "reliable sources" per the Wikipedia definition. The argument is hinging on the reliability of those sources, not your opinion of the coin's notability. Please provide your rationale on why those sources are not reliable or drop your case to have the article deleted. All you've done is link the page about reliable sources, but you did not provide any reason whatsoever why the sources quoted here do not meet that definition. Proof by assertion is not a valid way to make your point. 50.142.81.144 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've asserted they're not notable, that is a long way short of proving they're not notable. Especially when the majority of users here think otherwise about these multiple sources. Mathmo Talk 14:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one would mine such a coin, as there would be no money to be made. Also, the coin is just over a week old! fivexthethird (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, that would not make it notable. But that isn't what is being asserted as notable here. It is the articles listed that you keep brushing aside as part of the COI you obviously have. As for Fivexthethird, Dogecoin is profitable and is actively mined by a large number of people. 184.89.155.98 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clear conflict of interest, as per 72.241.150.12. Additionally, I am going to try to find better sources. fivexthethird (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 0.00000070 BTC/DOGE and a 4375 BTC market cap means it's got the 19th higest market cap of all cryptocurrencies already. obvious keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:DC2E:2:B165:B049:AFC8:B38F (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that BTC exchange rates were a fundamental part of WP:GNG Breadblade (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doge has grown from a proof of concept to an actual cryptocurrency in a matter of days. I see no reason why you should delete a page. I have seen hundreds of pages that seem more useless than this one, who chop one of them off. There is a whole community popping up around Dogecoin. http://dogepay.com/ - http://dogepool.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.196.152 (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should open deletion discussions for these bad articles. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Breadblade (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let's forget the idea of the nominators conflict-of-interest for a moment, that (may be) a red herring. If the reliability of the sources is in question, someone should inquire about them at WP:RSN. They will be reviewed for reliability by third parties. This deletion discussion need not even be mentioned, so they could be totally impartial. If they are found to be reliable, Atomicthumbs' rationale for deletion will be demolished. Personally, I 1) own no dogecoins (or any other fake money), and never plan to, 2) was not asked to come here and am not a meatpuppet (thanks for poisoning the well though!) 68.81.104.224 (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am putting together an RSN post now. Thank you for the suggestion! atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RSN post is here. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you might see some input on there from users who have an opinion about this deletion discussion, which might lead to a rehash of the same sort of back-and-forth seen on this AfD. Breadblade (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • many keep The coin's market cap is higher than that of many other altcoins we have articles for, and Doge has generated significant media coverage and incredible growth in the mere two weeks or so it's existed.  — TORTOISEWRATH 16:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GF Breadblade (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has gained the most popularity in the shortest time frame compared to any other cryptocurrency. There is no reason for this page to be deleted whatsoever. I think this coin will succeed. 20:23 15 December 2013
  • Keep It seems to be a rather popular alternative *coin, and rising in popularity very quickly. At least wait to see if the bubble bursts and it fades into obscurity, but as it is now it seems notable. 77.98.70.62 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where in that link does he claim that he is getting a rise out of anyone? Breadblade (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD nominator has clear CoI. Has one of the highest market caps for an altcoin, and certainly it would be useful for people wondering what Dogecoin is to be able to read a serious article about it on Wikipedia, instead of a wow-interspersed joke article on some techblog. 108.45.75.50 (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except the only sources for the "serious article" are the "wow-interspersed joke articles"... ZigSaw
  • Speedy Keep Notability established above per many, many posts. It seems like there is a lot of users now sourcing claims and the article seems like it will assert its notability from now and going forward.
On the subject of the COI, nominator is in clear COI. /r/shibe is an SRS-affiliated subreddit, and SRS (radical feminist social-justice group, with a penchant towards marxism) has voiced strong opposition to cryptocurrencies in the past. There may be political ties that have not been seen until now. It is clear that the nominator was acting in bad faith in an attempt in inject his ideology, as SRS has attempted to do in the past. Whether AT is a member of SRS is to be seen, but there is, in my opinion, no doubt that he was not trying to delete this for the good of Wikipedia, but rather for personal reasons. Acebulf (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me more about how being maybe-sorta associated with "radical feminists" with a "penchant towards marxism" automatically invalidates someone's opinions regarding the notability of a cryptocurrency article. ZigSaw 22:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum [1][2] It seems like the nominator is a member of SRS, which explains his motives behind trying to censor the article. Acebulf (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could we leave the Reddit drama on Reddit please? This discussion is about whether the page meets Wikipedia's guidelines, the personal motives of individuals here aren't really relevant to that. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This cryptocurrency is still in its infancy, but it is gaining popularity fast. It has been reported on a few news outlets so far as stated by others, and will continue to grow. There is no need to delete this page - maybe in a few weeks if this just crashes, but at this rate, I doubt it. Furthermore, there's increasing evidence that the whole reason why this has been tagged for speedy deletion is from some member on the infamous "troll" forum SomethingAwful decided to push this through to rustle everybody. If you ask me, that's a direct violation of my Wikipedia Freedoms™ and I will not stand for it. If they are successful in the deletion of this page, I predict Wikipedia would lose much members and would eventually die with the Dogecoin page. 173.63.40.164 (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, hell, it's hardly your fault. Some people get way too worked up about silly things, and when they have too much time on their hands, they do this kinda stuff. It's funny, in a way. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Weakest possible keep, or merge to Doge_(meme) Coverage of this coin has been limited to blogs and sites of limited reputability so far, this article might not pass WP:GNG. This content might be better merged to Doge_(meme), since it looks identical to existing coins besides the "Doge" branding. As an aside, I'm confused by the COI accusations of the nominator. The screenshot of his forum comment is hardly damning: in it, he talks about his deletion request getting overrun by meatpuppets. How is that evidence of trolling? I don't see what anyone stands to gain from this article getting deleted, but based on the meatpuppetry going on here I'd say the accusers might be projecting, especially if they have a monetary stake in Dogecoin. Breadblade (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The meatpuppetry, personal attacks, conspiracy theories and accusations of bad faith being thrown around on this AfD are simply embarrassing, but there is no longer a problem with sourcing. I still think there isn't much relevance to this coin beyond its connection to the meme, so a merge might be acceptable. Breadblade (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge A comedy cryptocurrency of little note other than it's connection with the Doge meme. The meatpuppetry on this page is also a disaster; any discussion that accuses wikipedia users of being "evil Marxists and feminists" belongs either in the 1950s or on 4chan. Not here. Fribbler (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're referring to my post. SRS is a social justice group who have not shied away from trying to censor Wikipedia in the past, if an article doesn't approve of their philosophies. That the group leans towards Marxism is actually relevant since they reject all cryptocurrencies due to that political leaning. Basically it comes down to the nominator is part of a group which has tried in the past to censor Wikipedia, and also are vehemently against cryptocurrencies. I believe it was relevant to the discussion. Acebulf (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's politics is irrelevant. They could be a grand wizard of the klu klux klan, the pope, or Karl Marx. It doesn't matter. I believe dogecoin isn't yet notable, and that's the basis of my vote. It may become notable, but for the moment it should be in the doge article. Keep the reddit politics out of the discussion. Fribbler (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Striking delete votes because canvassers got their hand caught in the cookie jar doesn't make much sense to me. Breadblade (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - literally days old, with very little (code-wise, usage-wise, or otherwise) to differentiate it from any number of other copy-and-paste forked cryptocurrencies. No reliable sources to speak of at this time. InShaneee (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much incorrect. Very reliable sources independent of such subject. Pilotbob (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such blogs. Much passing mention. Wow. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many article. Very not passing mention. Pilotbob (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much incorrect. So notable. Very reliable sources independent of the subject. Pls read 5 pillars. Wow 01:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're completely mistaken. Every citation is taken from a reliable source, and none of these are personal blogs. — Richard BB 09:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request userfication or submission into the Incubator - the only reason people are voting delete all of a sudden is because the meatpuppets have poisoned the whole discussion. Everybody who is claiming these are all blogs are giving no evidence that they are blogs, nor are they giving any evidence that they are unreliable other than just claiming they are "unreliable". I don't think that this will be the last we'll see of the article if it's deleted, because I truly believe that the sources are reliable and more will follow in the future. [citation needed] 12:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you're right. I know that this was posted to 4chan's /pol/ board (which is how I discovered the discussion) a few days ago, but I suspect it goes beyond that. — Richard BB 12:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that the nominator does have a COI as suggested by the various meatpuppets showing forum posts, which should disqualify this discussion from being valid. I was neutral in all of this until that was all revealed. I'd rather it be renominated by somebody who doesn't have one, can provide AND explain for a more solid reason other than "didn't bother looking at sources, won't explain why because muh notability claims.". This whole discussion should've ended and have been reopened by a third-party individual the second the COI claims started to pour in, because it's a complete disregarding of WP:COL and WP:NPOV at the very least. [citation needed] 12:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. The presence of a COI is not one of the criteria for speedy closing an AfD. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is a forum post in which I repost speedy deletion contestation comments I find amusing, like "I oppose this article being deleted because IT'S REALLY MONEY YOU FUCKING IDIOT", a conflict of interest? atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I think we are all mature enough not to delude into cursing over a AfD nomination... [citation needed] 18:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the reason people are so up in arms about the COI issue is because of the second issue being raised by Acebulf. You do happen to moderate a sub-reddit that has had affiliations with this "supposed feminist group". For the moment, I'm going to assume good faith that this is all just a coincidence and misunderstanding, but at the same time not entirely unsuspicious. It's obviously controversial, but this group has had similar dealings with processes on Wikipedia, making it perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of if you submitted this nomination in good-faith and waiting for a proper verdict, or if supposed political reasons are leading you to try and sway concensus towards your way.
For god's sake, I'm not cursing, I'm quoting verbatim from the talk page. What similar dealings has this "feminist group" have with Wikipedia, and how does this matter? atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow such heated. Doge support marxist feminist say pls no capitalism, such gender inequality, Pls gibbe class conciousness. Much traditions of all dead doges weigh like a nightmare on the brains of such living. Pls assume good faith -Pilotbob (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not accusing you of anything at all, simply because I doubt you are apart of this group, but the truth of the matter is that nobody knows for certain. Like Mark Arsten said, we shouldn't let COI issues dominate the discussion, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken into consideration by the closing admin. [citation needed] 19:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then what do you think it's for? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge. To say that it is unacceptable for someone to come to Wikipedia to acquire knowledge goes against everything an encyclopedia, and in particular Wikipedia, stands for and does. KonveyorBelt 17:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not just any knowledge. WP:GNG. Smite-Meister (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have another source. They're popping up like flies now that the week started. http://www.complex.com/tech/2013/12/dogecoin-on-reddit [citation needed] 20:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I don't exactly know much about the second link or anything about Complex Tech. That just happened to pop-up when I was searching for more sources, so that should be more deeply investigated on. The first one on the other hand, is likely the biggest source to talk about the currency to-date. It's owned by Vox Media, which also owns and manages other major brands such as SB Nation. So far, it's looking a tiny bit more brighter for Dogecoin as far as Wikipedia is concerned. [citation needed] 22:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another source popped-up, except this one is in Spanish presumably. http://www.qore.com/noticias/12867/Dogecoin-podria-desplazar-a-Bitcoin [citation needed] 01:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with RadioYeti (talk), above. It is too early to tell yet whether or not this currency will succeed or fail. In addition, the originator of the delete tag has marked more than one crypto currency article for deletion (See Yacoin). We should also discuss this as well. Sean Egan (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much sources, so multiple languages - The floodgates are opening:

Wired.com (the Italian version, but still) just released an article about the currency. That has been the seventh publication since this deletion nomination started, and likely the biggest one. There seems to be a trend with foreign sources coming out in addition to English ones, but I believe that these big-name sources of information are only hammering the nail on the coffin harder on whatever argument for deletion the nominator had. I also believe that even if the article somehow still got deleted, it would be recreated back very quickly just judging from how much has come in the last few days.

Source update & comment - This little guy comes from an IP on the talk page who requested it be listed here. It's a Russian news source, so have your translators fired up again: http://hitech.newsru.com/article/17dec2013/dogecoin. I don't know much about a snowstorm (although it's more like sleet with meatballs mixed in.), but at this rate, I'm going to have quite a time trying to get all of these sources listed in the right places. I'd like to thank Jimmy Wales, the Georgia Bulldogs, and Barrack Obama for all the help.

Also, I've also noticed that Vice's Motherboard section made a report on Doge, but this one happens to be a blog (specifically, it falls under WP:NEWSBLOG), so I was originally hesitant to bring this one up. This one might need to be talked about at WP:RSN even though Vice usually does pretty well on technology-related subjects, but I'll go ahead and also leave it up here for people to debate. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/dogecoin-brings-the-cryptocurrency-craze-to-its-logical-conclusion [citation needed] 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider just released an article. A snowy, merry Christmas seems to be in order for this Shiba Inu and his coin. DOGECOIN: How A Thing That Started As A Joke Became The Hottest Digital Currency In The World. [citation needed] 17:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Very merge to Cryptocurrency: Much Keep arguments are based upon the assumption of a future success; now, as this coin is not even a month old, such an assumption seems to be somewhat farfetched. There is also a clear lack of secondary sources that could provide some understanding of the subject beyond the obvious buzz and excitement: the launch of this "would-be currency" fails WP:EVENT. --Azurfrog (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can deny this or not, but most of these delete arguments only arose trying to cancel out the meatpuppetry by either blindly stating all the sources were blogs or arguing deletion only because "ewww memes, go back to 4chan, Reddit, etc". The only real arguments for deletion (let's use InShaneee and SagaciousPhil as an example) really don't strike with much force now because of the massive upsurge of brand-new sources listed above. Now, the Business Insider article and a couple of others could be used to help cite more of the technical explanations of the coin, it's founding and establishment by online communities such as 4chan and Reddit, OR even both. I agree, that this likely did not meet WP:GNG ONLY when this discussion started, but the influx of sources including a couple well-known ones have clearly fixed the issue to a large degree. At the very worst now, this discussion will end in a no concensus, or deletion followed by a speedy remake within a week, complete with all of these sources listed and then some.[citation needed] 19:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Azurfrog, have you created a tally of the two different sides? If not, then your opinion is useless and may bias other readers. Your argument for deletion is not based on any Wikipedia guidelines and as such does not weigh as heavily as those that do, such as the one that indicates that it meeds GNG above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I may have been a bit cryptic here: subject matter may (or may not) meet GNG, but I view it as falling into the category of "breaking news events", because it is so recent, and because the sources are largely vaporware (not to mention the focus on its being the first currency to be based upon an Internet meme). Now, assessing the creation of this currency as a (minor) "event" shows it fails WP:EVENT, most notably WP:INDEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. Most of the Keep "votes" seem to rely on the subject meeting GNG, regardless of the overwhelming buzz element (here again, WP:EVENT is more relevant, with such adequate points as WP:SENSATION or WP:ANTICIPATION).
      I am fully aware that a currency is NOT an event; but here, we are talking of a would-be currency just a few days old! so this article is more about the launch of a potential new currency than anything else, which IS an event (I would even say that is is an event badly in need of advertising to be successful ;-)...). --Azurfrog (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I came here as a result of the 'Business Insider' article. CGlassey 19:36 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep - notable, heres proof:

Remember, just because you feel it's not notable, doesn't mean it isn't. This feels not notable to me, but Wikipedia is not about editors making judgement calls based on intuition. Objectively this is notable, and that prevails over any subjective assessments Kyleshome (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot one source by the Washington Examiner, http://washingtonexaminer.com/internet-gold-doge-bitcoin-dogecoin/article/2541000?custom_click=rss. [citation needed] 22:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! added and tagged as added Kyleshome (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Such notable. Very coverage addressing topic. Much reliable independent sources. So ongoing coverage. Pls 5 pillars. Wow! #plsdontdeletethedoge Pilotbob (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It's a worthless cryptocurrency that was created purely as a joke, but it has received vast amounts of coverage and it seems like that coverage isn't slowing yet. I'd be one of the first to vote delete normally, but it's just undeniable that this passes every notability guideline around. Tractor Tyres (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can we please just snow keep this? It's ridiculous how we're showing over 20,000 users per day a deletion template when they visit the article. Tractor Tyres (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, very snow, much balls. Pilotbob (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article view hits don't count as part of the argument that Dogecoin passes WP:GNG, even though Dogecoin really does meet the criteria anyway. Plus, because we have two large keep factions (one of those being an assload of meatpuppets), meaning that it's more likely this will end the natural way. Still, even without the meatpuppets, the article has a better chance than it did at the start of the discussion. [citation needed] 01:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why my support vote and comment were seperate. I know that an articles views have nothing to do with notability (and could easily be forged) but if the subject is showing obvious notability we don't need to expose all those users to an ugly template. Tractor Tyres (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though Dogecoin may be based on a meme, that doesn't change the fact that it has been getting lots attention from news sites and internet users. Even though the article view count does not factor into the argument of keeping the article, you can see that Dogecoin is also very popular on other sites. On Reddit, for example, the Dogecoin tip bot is currently much more popular than the Bitcoin tip bot (http://www.reddit.com/user/bitcointip & http://www.reddit.com/user/dogetipbot). As seen in the news articles that others linked, dogecoin is in fact notable and a legitimate currency, and thus shouldn't be deleted. br100x (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Dogecoin has obviously gotten a lot of media attention but that alone does not guarantee lasting notability (WP:NOTNEWS). It appears it will be a fairly sizable cryptocurrency in the future. The marketcap is already approaching that of Feathercoin and Novacoin which currently have pages. I say keep for now. If in a month/ year the coin is dead and nobody is writing about it / paying attention to it, then relist it for deletion. [since I'm an inclusionist, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it being kept long term either way] Danski14(talk) 06:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It seems like it has been widely covered in reliable sources. I doubt the project will last, but that does not mean it is not notable. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such ADD. Many inclusionist. Wow. This probably shouldn't have been nominated for another week, by which point the majority of Wikipedia's more sanguine AfD contributors would be busy with their new Lego and bikes. The only notable thing about this subject is how meta it is, which is unsurprisingly why this AfD is such a train wreck given that our demographic regards Buzzfeed and Boing Boing as somewhat more essential to daily sustenance than oxygen. There is utterly no evidence of anything beyond routine coverage from specialist sources here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quick google search reveals several business articles including business insider, International Business Times UK, Digital Trends, The Verge, DailyTech referencing this item in the last couple days. This article could provide neutral background info for people looking for more information. --Bigbadman (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. How many altcoin articles are necessary? Going to dustcoin.com alone will tell us the existence of Bitcoin, Litecoin, PPCoin, Namecoin, Worldcoin, Feathercoin, Dogecoin, Novacoin, Devcoin, Freicoin, Digitalcoin, Ixcoin, Terracoin, BBQcoin and Mincoin. How many of these have articles? Clearly, being an altcoin does not establish notability. So what ELSE do we have? We have BuzzFeed articles. Let's go to BuzzFeed and look up some other reliable sources of information. Let's read some of these neutral, unbiased articles written only about notable subjects suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, like "Harry Potter Emojis Are What Your Phone Needs Immediately", "21 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Smoke Weed On Christmas", "23 Signs You’re Obsessed With Taking Pictures", "14 TV Episode Descriptions That Are Shockingly Bad". Oh man. I bet there's a lot of fact-checking in "28 Everyday Decisions That College Students Are Terrible At Making". I'm going to cite that in my thesis. I'm not saying its inclusion is totally without merit, but it doesn't deserve its own separate article when almost no other marginal cryptocurrency does, and the only difference between it and them is the fact that it's regularly featured in "Wacky Internet Meme News" articles. Does anyone have any recollection of WP:DUST? Merge, wait a few weeks, see if anything new happens and any more sources emerge (they won't, because this is a fad). If they do, make a separate article. Otherwise, don't. ZigSaw 21:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The funny thing is that sources HAVE BEEN emerging after this discussion started. Names like Business Insider, Wired, The Verge, and The Washington Examiner to name a couple. I do agree with your comment regarding the other altcoins, because they are relying heavily on technical documentation by their own creators, forum posts, and links to their own websites as source material. Dogecoin is different, and not just because it's based on one of the big, bad evil internet memes that EVERY WIKIPEDIAN should be afraid of, but because it's outperforming in a time when Bitcoin and every other altcoin is shitting the bed because of China's opinion on the legal status of altcoins. That's stirring up a little thing called media attention, and it's the big factor raised by the nominator, which the majority of people here (not including the meatpuppets) are agreeing meets WP:GNG. [citation needed] 23:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a vaild argument for deletion. [citation needed] 19:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now as per above argument. Notable enough for inclusion along with other altcoins, but not yet notable enough for its own article. If Dogecoin gains notability and reliable sources, I would favor it having its own article. Uberstadt (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above yours. [citation needed] 23:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't have hit the nail harder on the head if you could. A barnstar for you! [citation needed] 22:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would be the case if I were trying to suppress knowledge of Dogecoin. I think it's a funny thing, and am amused that it's the only cryptocurrency that came out ahead in this week's Bitcoin bubble burst, but when I nominated it for deletion, it didn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements as no reliable sources existed. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who said you were trying to suppress knowledge? You were simply acting per policy at the time when this article likely didn't meet WP:GNG, which is hardly the case now. I'd rather you'd just withdraw the discussion and end all this nonsense for awhile until some other individual comes up with another reason, given the circumstances, but that's just me. [citation needed] 00:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to veer even further off topic, but I'm confused by this. Didn't you just say the streissand effect was a good analogy? Breadblade (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Atomic decided to nominate Dogecoin up for deletion because he thought it didn't meet notability guidelines. He ended up having a lopsided discussion with most people going keep or merge, and even pissed off 4chan's /g/ board to the point that they released his personal information (phone number, address, name, etc; all that has since been removed from what I can observe). That kinda seems to represent an unintended consequence according to the streissand effect. [citation needed] 01:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Late to the discussion, but looking at the subject itself without considering any of the accusations and possible COI going on, I think there's been significant enough coverage from the various reliable sources posted above. In response to claims that Dogecoin is a temporary fad or is bound to fail, whether or not Dogecoin ends up being successful is fairly irrelevant regarding its notability and significance. The present-day notability is enough to warrant recording here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:51, 21 December 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dogecoin&oldid=1158846347"