Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reddcoin

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reddcoin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional sources are being added now. However, certain sources, such as blockchains, are both public and highly reliable. Bitcoin network has an explanation of the public nature of the blockchain. Mike Croteau 02:23, 6 May 2014 UTC

The blockchain is a public record of all the transactions using reddcoin. The fact people are using it does not mean it meets Wikipedia's 'notability' standard. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Outside, second party sources are now included throughout the article, as per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. These sources include reliable and impartial sources within the Cryptocoin Community to provide independent and reliable information:

CoinDesk.com
Coinwrite.org
CryptocoinChronicles.com
redditmetrics.com
altexplorer.net
BitcoinBarbie.com
CryptocoinNews.com
Cryptsy.com
cryptofrenzy.wordpress.com
todayscryptocoin.com
CoinJoint.Info
Times Square Chronicles (t2conline.com)

Please provide additional feedback if further changes and citations are required. This is my first Wikipedia article writing from scratch, and I modeled it after those for Litecoin and Dogecoin. Mike Croteau 04:12, 6 May 2014 UTC

Delete Did not meet WP:GNG criteria of significant coverage from multiple independently-published reliable sources (WP:RS). I removed a number of references from the article while evaluating sources due to their failure to meet WP:RS (e.g. forum posts, blog posts, primary sources that require technical interpretation). The only independent coverage remaining from a possibly-reliable source was from the "Times Square Chronicles" news organization at t2conline.com (I've never heard of them before, personally). Other possibly-RS sources found in searches include forexminute.com and business2community.com. The article as it stands depends heavily on primary sources, and it is not clear that the people and groups identifying themselves as Reddcoin are the same, or are promoting the same cryptocurrency; a non-reliable blog post mentioned that Reddcoin has forked into multiple versions using the same name. Agyle (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: business2community.com blog posts are open to public submissions, and syndicated unedited to sites like Yahoo!; these do not qualify as reliable sources. The t2conline.com article was written by a Joshua Plant, who according to this linked in profile claims to be an early investor in Reddcoin and a ReddCoin "Team Member". Given the undisclosed nature of his relationship, I would consider t2conline.com to not be an independent reliable source. This sort of potential deception, if perpetrated by the Reddcoin organization, may run afoul of US Securities regulations; at the very least, I would treat unfamiliar sources skeptically with regards to this topic. Agyle (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reddcoin is a cryptocurrency similar to Dogecoin that is starting to be noticed in the cryptocurrency community. It is much like Dogecoin. Reddcoin had one fork, but there is only one current blockchain and only one community called Reddcoin. I understand that some of the material on the page might have to be removed due to a lack of third party sources, but a small page with a general overview can certainly be maintained. the Forex Minute and Business 2 Community sources should be reconsidered as valid, third party, independent reliable sources. Mike Croteau (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as mere promotional and non-notable crud. Citation Needed | Talk 11:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Fails WP:GNG and although I will assume good faith, it appears that this page might serve as a vanity page to encourage people to adopt the currency. Tutelary (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources, not enough notability Adamh4 (talk) 18:30, 7 May 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.