Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldcoin

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ApharionDeSol (talk | contribs) at 06:43, 29 January 2014 (Worldcoin: editted to make it better arguement.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Worldcoin (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)

Non-notable altcoin, fails WP:GNG, WP:PROMO. Citation Needed | Talk 00:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. why is this article even being considered for deletion? Scharmbeck is a LLC, which is a legit company backing an altcoin, doesn't it makes it more legit than most altcoins today? [1] Would also like to add, Sites like crypto-trade.com rates WDC at the level of importance as LTC, (these are the altcoins with US dollar exchanges only), I would like to suggest lets edit this article until it meets standard, but it has to stay. If Worldcoin is not included, then altcoins like dogecoins/quark/primecoin/litecoin shouldn't even have entry either. ApharionDeSol (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep disagree with this nomination for deletion. worldcoin is much more known that dogecoin peercoin or primecoin. and there has been noteable positive mentions from media. (which the wiki here also listed from MSNBC) almost none other crypto has this kind of mention save bitcoin. also almost ALL exchanges has worldcoin, definitely better known than many altcoins with entries in Wikipedia. Market cap at #8 also speaks for itself. Bzero5 (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Ryan Williams Bzero5 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What references did you find that you would describe as significant RS coverage? All of the refs in the article don't look like RS to me, and a search turned up some incidental mentions, like nationalreview.com, but a few sentences in an article covering many coins doesn't meet the threshold for significant coverage.Dialectric (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can I offer a link that I feel should be included? http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch/cashing-in-on-bitcoin-111318083837 , this is news coverage of cryptocurrencies on MSNBC, and they mentioned Worldcoin and Litecoin as the most noteable currencies around 3:30 into the video talk by a 3rd party reporter, I feel this is very relevant. ApharionDeSol (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)ApharionDeSol[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the MSNBC video, Worldcoin was compared to Litecoin in terms of reputation and value retention. Further, at 14million USD capitalization and traded almost on every single Crypto exchange, makes it much more noteable than say, for example Primecoin. A google search will return you with plenty of noteable mentions, therefore I feel when you say "yet another non-notable cryptocurrency", I feel you did not research the situation diligently, Worldcoin might be new, but it is indeed noteable this moment. Can I suggest you review/update your knowledge of the topic, cause calling Worldcoin 'not noetable', is like people saying Tesla wasn't noteable in 2013. Cause you never heard of it, doesn't make it not noteable. Apha 06:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)