Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulden (digital currency)

Gulden (digital currency)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[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)

No evidence of notability, largely uncited, one RS and some crypto blogs. This is cut-down from a much more blatantly promotional version [1], cited to primary sources and crypto blogs. David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Parool is the RS that you are talking about, this then means that you think sportnext.nl is a "crypto blog", which it most clearly is not. It seems you are overly hasty in your rush to purge this article, first you attempted a WP:PROD despite it clearly not being the reasonable way forward and now you don't even do basic fact checking in your claim of no notability. If you think sportsnext is a "cryptoblog" then how hard could you possibly have searched to determine notability? I'd say not at all... (102.182.161.211 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:
- There are plenty of notable sources for Gulden, a brief search turns up:
  - https://www.rtvnoord.nl/nieuws/194786/Een-drankje-betalen-met-guldens-het-kan-in-Groningen (Main stream dutch public broadcaster)
  - https://www.oogtv.nl/2018/06/in-groningen-betaal-je-met-de-gulden/ (Main stream dutch public broadcaster)
  - https://www.rtlz.nl/tv/laatste-videos/video/3776371/gulden-moet-de-bitcoin-doen-vergeten (Live TV interview with main stream dutch TV broadcaster)
  - https://www.businessinsider.nl/rijk-plasman-gulden-2018/ (Interview with business insider a major publication - there are at least 2 if not more other business insider articles)
  - http://linuxmag.nl/2-algemeen/1200-de-nieuwe-gulden-crypto-uit-nederland (Detailed multi page article in notable dutch magazine)
  - https://issuu.com/abnamro/docs/ff-2018-02_los/48 (Gulden featured in publication by major Dutch bank)
- This is from just a brief search, there are from what I can tell literally dozens more articles across multiple main stream dutch publications, while not all are notable on their own there are definitely many that are and collectively they show that Gulden has achieved a level of main stream awareness in the Netherlands.
- I suspect this article is being claimed "non-notable" by people who speak mostly English and are not from the Netherlands and are therefore imposing their own reluctance/inability to translate Dutch and/or intolerance for other cultures as a lack of material.
- A single american editor with a clear lack of interest in a dutch coin has taken it upon himself to delete, as opposed to correct, all text added to the article and as such has stunted the willingness of anyone to attempt to contribute to the article.

(102.182.161.211 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC))— 102.182.161.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak delete - I considered nominating this myself when I removed some of the cruft from the article this morning. Most of the coverage in sources has the tone of press releases and some of the other coverage is passing in nature. I'm not familiar enough with Dutch sources to be able to make a strong statement in support of deleting, but at least some of the sources do seem like cryptoblogs. We really need to hammer out a guideline for cryptocurrencies and related topics. For now, this does not seem to quite meet WP:SIGCOV.- Mr X 🖋 21:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NSOFT / WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I question how hard you have looked for RS coverage. A further few minutes searching has revealed.

https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/02/07/je-hoeft-blockchain-niet-te-snappen-6572486-a1544900 (fifth most circulated newspaper in the Netherlands - seems significant - might not cover the technical details as much as would be liked but that is not relevant for notability)

http://www.tns-nipo.com/nieuws/persberichten/aantal-nederlandse-beleggers-cryptovaluta-dit-jaar (Large survey agency conducts significantly sized survey on crypto investments and considers Gulden notable enough to mention it)

http://www.tns-nipo.com/nieuws/persberichten/aantal-crypto-investeerders-met-100-000-afgenomen (Same survey agency conducts follow up survey and this time finds Gulden notable enough to state its percentage - stating that of the estimated 480000 Dutch crypto traders 56% hold some Bitcoin while 21% hold Gulden - agency clearly considers this significant to the point that they continue tracking it over time)

These are just the first few I stumbled on, a quick search has turned up a list of dozens upon dozens of newspaper articles or references that need to be trawled through. (102.182.161.211 (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Marketing agencies who talk about how to "grow your brand" are not WP:RSes, and particularly not for crypto coverage - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That you (probably deliberately) confuse/misrepresent an independent market research group; one of the largest in the world, and that is cited in various other wikipedia articles as a "marketing agency" speaks volumes about your bias here. (102.182.154.36 (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I see you're working hard on convincing others. In any case, market researchers quite definitely do not pass WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSOFT. Balkywrest (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly as more than software but as a currency project WP:NSOFT which is intended for articles about more conventional software does not apply here, if it did -all- cryptocurencies outside of Bitcoin and potentially maybe Ethereum would need to be removed, I do not see WP:NSOFT being applied in other cases therefore this would be inconsistent. (102.182.154.36 (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally considered a failing argument at AFD, so probably doesn't achieve what you want - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: It is in the public interest to be able to find out unbiased information about cryptocurrencies, and the Gulden wikipedia entry should be part of that Gulden is

considerably less controversial than many cryptocurrencies as it is over 5 years old, and was not started as a get rich quick ICO. With regards to notability Gulden has been used by up to 150,000 users and Gulden has attracted controversy, which is notable by itself. The developers have published, developed and implemented innovative blockchain techniques which justifies the term 2nd generation blockchain. The fact that this is not more widely known I would argue is a case to make the wikipedia entry more detailed rather than deleting it or removing much of the content continually on the grounds that it is just marketing. I would argue that technical details of the unique features of Gulden are interesting and are verifiable from the source code and the developers whitepaper. The Developers claim to be making innovation in blockchain technology and the success or failures of the progress should be documented in the entry.

WP:NSOFT Does not apply as Gulden is a Blockchain, not a software product WP:NORG Does not apply again, as Gulden is a blockchain and associated community based infarstrcure which does include some organisations but is not in itself an organisation 12:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)12:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBelshaw55 (talk • contribs)