Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StableCoin

StableCoin

StableCoin (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)

Another altcoin article. Reads like a WP:PROMO in addition to failing WP:GNG due to lack of sources. Citation Needed | Talk 20:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition, the article creator seems to be a WP:SPA with his/her only edits on one article that he created. Citation Needed | Talk 21:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete Both of those references are press releases by Stablecoin. Stablecoin has re-started very recently, and this page is no doubt part of their "awareness campaign". They desperately need exposure (because the more people that are interested, the higher the price will be), and they seem pretty desperate to keep the price high. Also, there doesnt seem to be any news. The problem with things like this is that when theyre starting up, its pretty much a pyramid/ponzi scheme. It rewards early investors to the point that using it as a currency would be silly. The reason i think this should be deleted, though, is because its not notable (yet?) and is clearly promotional. Benboy00 (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• The source just added by a different SPA is also a press release from Stablecoin. Benboy00 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I am declaring my neutrality in this discussion due to me being a regular of /g/ and /pol/, which happens to be main hotspots for discussion regarding this specific coin. I've also made a statement on a StableCoin general on 4chan (listed here at http://i.imgur.com/nkzQSGZ.png, because 4chan is blacklisted) explaining the issues that the article currently faces. Citation Needed | Talk 22:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a local source from a NBC affiliate in Virginia that talks about the coin, but this won't be enough. Either way, here's the source: http://www.wsls.com/story/24227113/innovative-bitcoin-alternative-stablecoin-posts-strong-gains-in-return Citation Needed | Talk 23:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Thats from here, which is a press release. I'm not sure if we can rly count that as a reliable source, although maybe since the local news service reposted it, it might count (not sure of the exact rules on that). Benboy00 (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - the article reads like an advertisement. SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I am, along with others, actively changing the page due to the direction of the text in the article. When the page was first created it did sound like a promotional page. I have removed a lot of wording that would make it look that way. I am continuing to pull sources and other information from the developer to expand on the history and revisions of the topic. I will continue to update as the information comes in. Huey2323 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment As it stands, the entirety of the section "mixing service" is a copyvio from here. The problem with all these sites is that none of them count as a reliable source under WP:RELIABLE. This is, as stated before, "just another altcoin article". Bitcoin is notable because it has a whole heap of news coverage (and some serious adoption). Coinye is notable because it has a load of news coverage. This, however, does not have coverage in reliable independent sources. Of the current 8 sources: 3 are forums, 1 is a blogspot page, 3 are crypto-currency specialist websites, and the last is a press release website. Unless this changes, the page is unlikely to remain. Benboy00 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Therefore, from your reasoning, in order to be "relevant" the "news" has to cover it? That doesn't seem to be the way to determine relevancy due to the slant of popular new organizations. As I stated before, I will be updating the page along with references to make it less than promotional. You are wrong about who copied from where...The mixing information was copied from here [1] which is directly from the developer. Huey2323 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not his reasoning, is the standard Wikipedia policy: WP:GNG. Smite-Meister (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where it was copied from unless that source had a compatible CCP License (which it doesn't). Copying verbatim is not allowed. Please see WP:COPYPASTE. Also, as smite-meister says, WP:GNG is wikipedia policy, and it does make sense. There are also several other policies that this page probably fails, like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Benboy00 (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability. Refs provided are forums and marketing/press release sites and not RS coverage. A search revealed no significant RS coverage. As mentioned above, article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Utter failure of GNG. Sources are blogs or promotional press releases. Joint work of several SPA authors. I only wish that there was a faster way to delete articles like this. Smite-Meister (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: StableCoin looks as if it has potential, but it still doesn't pass the GNG. Perhaps in the future. Tractor Tyres (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)