Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qtum

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. Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qtum

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

Notability was not established. The article is based on primary and self-published sources only. Retimuko (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1. per nom, the sources I checked were primary and WP:PRIMARYNEWS, seems WP:TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 22:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the rash of cryptocurrencies I also have concerns about the usual cryptocurrency article enthusiasm / promotion yadder yadder, as we seem to be playing whack-a-mole with these non-notable or borderline N articles which are created with enthusiasm / promotion. May I suggest that as all these ICOs have been compared to startup IPOs, bringing with them the same kind of necessary WP:DEADLINE pressure here that isn't fitting, but crucially, the spirit of WP:NCORP should apply, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 22:44, 1 March 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.