Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Æternity

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. Michig (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Æternity

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency. All the references are primary sources, blogs, or otherwise can't be used to establish notability. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the page's current references aren't very strong, the subject appears to meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what? I just did a reference check - there are literally zero RSes given that even mention the article topic. Literally all the references are primary, unreliable (blogs) or irrelevant to the article topic, Æternity. There are zero third-party RSes listed - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Around half the references are to the company's own website and Github files. The other references are mostly unreliable or not independent. The few reliable references have only a limited amount to do with the company. The article itself is unduly detailed and reads like a brochure. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just promotional. Zero third-party RSes - of the 36 references given, all sources are primary, unreliable or not about Æternity. I was going to attempt a cull to RSes, but this would mean just deleting the article. On a quick WP:BEFORE, all Google News hits are press release reprints and churnalism in crypto blogs. This is a WP:TOOSOON at very best - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is sufficient information to provide information as to how this coin functions and its purpose, and I don't see a reason to delete it other than its not-as-huge prominence in the space. Responding to the comment that there is not many outside references, I feel like that can be added into the article moving on. omegshi147 • talk 04:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd need to find any references first - there are literally zero. Do you have any? - David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet minimum standards set in WP:ORG. Not a single reliable source provides anything close to substantial coverage.Glendoremus (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG no reliable source found and written like advertisement of the company

Delete no relevant sources, promotional HLFH (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2018 (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.