Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MinerGate

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MinerGate

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

Yet another non-notable bitcoin website. Almost no mentions in any reliable source, any are only in passing. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,,, Spam on some software, happens every day and this isn't notable. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - while the software isn't spam, it is not notable. It also reads as such as an ADVERT and also not only that the references are mainly using github, and minergates own website which github does not necessarily count a reliable source as it is opensource and usually the repo is maintained or made by the company in this case Minergate. Only real source for it from at least what I consider reliable is bitcoin.com which is a news source for cryptocurrency, and bitcoin.it which is I consider one of the reliable wiki's out there on cryptocurrency, but mainly sources are minergate download links, and one affiliate link. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Article is written as an advertisement and promotional. Does not pass WP:GNG. Pretty sure this is also WP:G11 worthy. Operator873^CONNECT 00:40, 15 December 2017 (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.