Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertcoin (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Sheldybett (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vertcoin

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

Vertcoin (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 cryptocurrency. The best sources from the past AfDs are IB Times and BBC News. Though BBC just has it in the side bar section called "Alt coin mining". It was only because the miner they interviewed happened to like vertcoin a lot. If they interviewed someone else it could have been a different coin. A Daily Dot article was cited by some keeps but it was pointed out that it's an opinion piece republished from someone's blog. End of the 2nd AfD an article from JOSIC is cited but the site doesn't load for me and it probably wasn't a reliable source per the objector's comments. In my opinion IB Times was the only source that can be used to establish notability. Is there anything better? Џ 01:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Babymissfortune 02:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a reference check. This has literally zero RSes - mostly primary, one unreliable, two that don't mention Vertcoin at all - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is this? Why do you want to delete the item due to these citations? Indeed. They are not literary sources, but i think you can hardly expect that for anyrything in the crypto environment currently. High quality primary sources with publically reviewable code is cited. That seems more than enough sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.48.205 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC) — 62.163.48.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Investopedia article "3 Obscure Cryptocurrencies to Watch" wasn't written by a staff writer. There are hundreds of "contributors" to the site. NBC article "Missed the bitcoin boom? Check out these five rising cryptocurrencies" was published at a time when most altcoins were rising. Џ 04:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Charlton, Alistair (2014-02-05). "Vertcoin: The Soaring Cryptocurrency Set to Surpass Bitcoin". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
    2. DeMuro, Jonas (2018-02-03). "6 cryptocurrencies that could become the next Bitcoin". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
    3. Popken, Ben (2018-01-03). "Missed the bitcoin boom? Check out these five rising cryptocurrencies". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
    4. Ryan, Thomas (2014-04-29). "Why we benchmark with Vertcoin". SemiAccurate. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
    5. Ward, Mark (2014-04-25). "How to mint your own virtual money". BBC. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Charlton, Alistair (2014-02-05). "Vertcoin: The Soaring Cryptocurrency Set to Surpass Bitcoin". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.

      The article notes:

      David Muller's Vertcoin hopes to offer an alternative. By taking the foundations of bitcoin and making some adjustments, vertcoin punishes miners who use powerful machines and work together in 'pools' to monopolise the mining market.

      ...

      As with most cryptocurrencies, vertcoin had an almost worthless valuation when it was created at the start of 2014, but while others have seen small peaks and troughs since then, vertcoin has soared from mere cents to more than $9 per coin, increasing by several hundred percent every day.

      ...

      Because it was only launched earlier this year - and is resistant to industrial-scale mining from powerful computers - vertcoins are somewhat scarce. Due to a lack of bitcoin-style ecosystem of exchanges where coins are traded for real-world currencies like dollars, sterling and the euro, vertcoins are bought in exchange for bitcoins on sites like CoinedUp.com.

    2. DeMuro, Jonas (2018-02-03). "6 cryptocurrencies that could become the next Bitcoin". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.

      The article notes:

      6. Vertcoin (VTC)

      Vertcoin was launched in 2014, and is similar to Bitcoin and Litecoin, although it’s certainly not as well-known. Vertcoin is open source, decentralized, and has a block time of 2.5 minutes. It also endeavors to be ‘the peoples’ coin’.

      In other words, Vertcoin wants to avoid control by banks or other centralized mining powers. It incorporates ASIC resistance, meaning it’s designed to avoid being dominated by mining farms, allowing everyone the opportunity to mine using simple consumer graphics cards.

      Vertcoin also utilizes the Lightning Network for instant blockchain transactions. Additionally, the Lightning Network has the ‘Atomic Cross-Chain’ which allows Vertcoin to be exchanged directly into either Litecoin or Bitcoin, decentralizing the exchanges. The creators are also working on ‘Stealth Addresses’ which allows them to provide privacy within the public ledger of the blockchain.

      Two other factors contribute to the popularity of Vertcoin. The first is that it has an active community on social media sites, and the other big plus is that it’s easily mined by novices using one-click software, making it highly accessible.

    3. Popken, Ben (2018-01-03). "Missed the bitcoin boom? Check out these five rising cryptocurrencies". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.

      The article notes:

      Vertcoin (coin)

      Jan. 1, 2017 price: $0.03

      Jan. 1, 2018 price: $6.80

      Rise: 22,500 percent

      One of the criticisms of bitcoin is that it's supposed to be deregulated and decentralized. But "minting" or "mining" more bitcoins requires using increasingly faster and more expensive computers to solve more complex math problems. That puts more power in the hands of those who have the time and money to run the mining systems, especially specialized machines whose sole purpose is mining. Vertcoin is a tweaked version of bitcoin that its developers say is "resistant" to being exploited by some of these systems. That's drawn fans on the social link sharing site Reddit, and soaring popularity over the last year.

    4. Ryan, Thomas (2014-04-29). "Why we benchmark with Vertcoin". SemiAccurate. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.

      The article notes:

      As a viable crypto currency with a network hashrate of about five Gigahashes per second it clear that mining Vertcoin is a meaningful real-world workload. Consistency and reproducibility are concepts that go hand in hand when it comes to crypto currency. Vertcoin is a Scrypt-N coin; unlike SHA-256 coins or other Scrypt-based coins, Vertcoin offers comparatively low hashrates. Using one of AMD’s HD 7970’s will net you about 650 Megahashs per second mining a SHA-256 coin. That same GPU will mine a Scrypt-based coin at about 700 Kilohashes per second and it will mine Vertcoin at about 350 kilohashes per second. We believe that extreme difficulty of the algorithm behind Vertcoin will allow it remain relevant through successive generations of new GPUs.

      Vertcoin is unlike a lot of other coins in that the user’s options for tuning their miners are far more limited than with other coins. There are really only two relevant settings when it comes to tuning a Vertcoin miner: intensity and thread concurrency. As a good starting point to find the right thread concurrency number for your GPU you should take the number of cores and then multiply that number by four. Because Vertcoin’s algorithm requires double the amount of memory as other Scrypt coins we then are going to double that thread concurrency number. In the case of your HD 7970 that means we’re using a thread concurrency of 16384.

      The author of this SemiAccurate article, Ryan Thomas, is also a writer for PC World.
    5. Ward, Mark (2014-04-25). "How to mint your own virtual money". BBC. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.

      The article notes:

      Vertcoin's developers have modified its mining algorithm which generates the coins. Despite its name, mining actually involves getting a computer to search for the answer to a hard mathematical problem. The miner who finds the answer typically gets rewarded with newly minted coins.

      Mr Houlihane liked Vertcoin because, he said, it is designed to be hard to mine with dedicated processors. The rise of these purpose-made processors have made it all but impossible for the vast majority of people to mine Bitcoins. The mining is dominated by groups that have tied together hundreds of dedicated processors with which the average home miner cannot hope to compete.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vertcoin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit, you falsely marked Џ (talk · contribs) as an SPA. Can you explain your rationale for this action, based on Џ's contributions? - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Џ account was created 22 December 2018, four days before the start of this AfD. I agree that this is not a single-purpose account since this is a returning editor. Cunard (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review of sources 1) IB Times article by a staff writer that I said was okay in the nomination. 2) Article titled "6 cryptocurrencies that could become the next Bitcoin" written by Jonas DeMuro. His most recent articles are "Best payment gateways of 2019", "Best mobile card payment reader of 2018", and "Best merchant services of 2018" and he has many more like that. I don't think any of these low effort list articles establish notability. 3) Article titled "Missed the bitcoin boom? Check out these five rising cryptocurrencies" published when most altcoins were rising in early 2018. How did the writer decide what to include or is it another low effort list article with no new information? 4) Article titled "Why we benchmark with Vertcoin". Is this not a primary source? They link this article which is a review that used vertcoin to test mining performance and I guess some asked why they used vertcoin so they publish an article on why they like vertcoin. 5) I went over this in the nomination: "BBC just has it in the side bar section called 'Alt coin mining'. It was only because the miner they interviewed happened to like vertcoin a lot. If they interviewed someone else it could have been a different coin." Still so far, it's only the IB Times article that I think helps establish notability. Џ 05:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider the articles in TechRadar and NBC News to be "significant coverage in reliable sources" that provide detailed analysis about Vertcoin, not "low effort list articles". I do not consider the article in SemiAccurate to be a primary source just because SemiAccurate "used vertcoin to test mining performance". They did not create or develop Vertcoin. That they "publish[ed] an article on why they like vertcoin" and why they are using it as a benchmark is significant coverage in a reliable source independent of Vertcoin.

    Cunard (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be part of the vertcoin team for the source not to be independent. WP:Identifying and using independent sources says "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." They were mining vertcoin at the time and could have profited if it went up in value. Џ 07:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SemiAccurate's mining of Vertcoin was to "quantify the relative performance of GPUs". This is standard journalistic research. Vertcoin might go up in value and make the Vertcoin they mined in their research more valuable. I do not think standard journalistic research should render SemiAccurate an unusable source for notability. But even if SemiAccurate is disregarded, there is still sufficient coverage to establish notability.

Cunard (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All the work above describes exactly in terms that are entirely generic to other 100's of cryptocurrencies that exist, and have no special meaning outside those cryptocurrency companies. The premise seems to be based on the tweak to their algo to favour GPU's, isn't enough for standalone notability, as the reason for the high cost of NVidia cards is due to the miners emptying the shelves, and Vertcoin arent the only cryptocoin company that favours GPU's, against FPGA or ASIC's. So a solid Delete by WP:NCORP scope_creepTalk 11:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep because it seems to be little more then advertising platform. I fully realize and agree with User:Cunard that there does exist enough sources to make an article. Deletion is not the path for clean up but hopefully one of the Bit Coin experienced editors take notes and helps maintain it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hell in a Bucket: I read your response did you mean keep here? Valoem talk contrib 01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Valoem I meant to strike my deletion rationale in favor of a keep. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I corrected it for you. Valoem talk contrib 01:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see the response. I want to make sure that my rationale is clear. Subject is notable, I think it has largely been advertisement (my deletion reason) but I do note that with the proper attention the article can be sourced and written in a formal and encyclopedic fashion (not my rationale because it is established policy deletion is not for cleanup). I am on the side that they are not all bit coins are inherently notable but consensus has seemed to be that they are in the previous discussions so here we are :). Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that you did not see this response, which earlier had been moved up the page.

Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), I agree that "with the proper attention the article can be sourced and written in a formal and encyclopedic fashion". I rewrote the article with the sources I presented here. Would you reconsider your "delete" position? Thank you,

Cunard (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cunard, I can support the changes you made to the article, it looks much improved and while I still have reservations it won't be turned back to an ad platform over time by others, I'm comfortable enough with it as is to change to Keep noting that any article could have the same issue and shouldn't be the final determiner. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), for reviewing the article and reconsidering your position. I agree that the article might be "turned back to an ad platform over time by others", so I've put it on my watchlist. I have many articles on my watchlist so may overlook promotional edits that get through. I encourage more editors and admins to watchlist the page so that promotional edits can be reverted and the page protected if necessary.

Cunard (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The source provided prove that this cryptocurrency pass Wikipedia's GNG. From what I understand have articles regarding specific coin may influence their trading behavior. I cannot help but notice that there maybe a financial motive for the removal of articles involving this subject. Here are some additional sources:
  1. Brewster, Thomas (2017-11-08). "This Russian Has The Power To Turn 100,000 Android Phones Into Cryptocurrency Miners". Forbes. Retrieved 2019-01-01.

    The article notes:

    to make much money from his miners so far. Indeed, he said that despite having as many as 103,000 live installs across his applications, and tens of millions of historical downloads, only 5,000 had enabled the feature. A cryptocurrency account found by Tanase showed Khripov earned the equivalent of $1,150 in Magicoin as of Tuesday. The developer was mainly focused on Magicoin, as well as Feathercoin and Vertcoin, amongst other lesser-known, alternative currencies (better known as altcoins).

  2. Georgiev, Georgi (2018-02-03). "VERTCOIN 51% ATTACK COULD HAVE CAUSED $100K IN DOUBLE SPENDING". bitcoinist. Retrieved 2019-01-01.

    The article notes:

    6. Vertcoin

    It’s worth noting that Vertcoin’s mining algorithm is deliberately geared against ASIC and ASIC-like devices by making them particularly inefficient. Instead, mining on the network is designed to be achieved solely through commonly available graphics cards. This is supposedly an attempt to hedge against mining centralization.

  3. Drake, Ed (2018-12-01). "Vertcoin loses over $100,000 in 51% attack: report". CoinGeek. Retrieved 2019-01-01.

    The article notes:

    Vertcoin

    Vertcoin (VTC) has fallen prey to a 51% attack, with some estimates suggesting losses have already surpassed $100,000 as a result of double spend transactions on the chain. It is the latest example of a 51% attack, where attackers take control of a majority share of a network, reflecting the inherent weaknesses in the proof of work model.

As per Cunard there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vertcoin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Valoem talk contrib 01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article just mentions it once as one of the coins mined so it isn't significant coverage. The other two are cryptocurrency news sites and one of the outcomes of WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk was that it shouldn't be used for notability. Though technically the RfC was just for CoinDesk I doubt other cryptocurrency news sites would get a better outcome. Џ 08:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here is another source about the subject:
    1. Kim, Il-Hwan (December 2018). "Feasibility Analysis of Majority Attacks on Blockchains". The Transactions of The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers. 67 (12). Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers: 1685–1689. doi:10.5370/KIEE.2018.67.12.1685. ISSN 1975-8359. Retrieved 2019-01-03 – via Nurimedia.

      From the abstract:

      In this research, 51% attack or majority attack is becoming an important security issue for proof of work based blockchains. Due to decentralized nature of blockchains, any attacks that shutdowns the network or which take control over the network is hard to prevent and assess. In this paper, different types of majority attack are summarized and the motivations behind the attacks are explained. To show the feasibility of the majority attack, we build an example mining machines that can take control over two of the public blockchains, Vertcoin and Monero.

      From the article:

      5.2.1 Vertcoin (VTC)

      Vertcoin is a PoW blockchain based on Lyra2rev2 algorithm [11]. It is known to support atomic swap, which is a way to exchange Vertcoin with different PoW based coins. MAs that delays transactions are dangerous for atomic swap, as it uses hash time locked transaction. Because it is not a very popular blockchain, the difficulty adjustment algorithm is very sensitive to hashrate change, making it an easy target to timestamp spoofing and cherry picking attack.

      From the "Conclusion" section:

      ... Finally, feasibility analysis also show that our machine could have launched majority attacks for Vertcoin and Monero using the hashrate of 1.92 and 2.4 Ghash respectively. ...

      Here is the journal article's author's biography:

      Il-Hwan Kim

      He received B.S. and M.S. degree in the dept. of control and instrumentation engineering from Seoul National University in 1982 and 1985 respectively and Ph.D. at the Tohoku University in 1993. In 1995, he joined the dept. of electrical and electronic engineering at the Kangwon National University and is currently a professor

    That Vertcoin has been the subject of academic research strongly support its notability.

    The full-length article in International Business Times and the significant coverage in the journal The Transactions of The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers, TechRadar, and NBC News is enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have access to the article. It was published in December 2018. There is no exact date provided for when it was published. Here is what the source says:

    출처: 전기학회논문지 67(12), 2018.12, 1685-1689 (5 pages)

    (Source): The transactions of The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers 67(12), 2018.12, 1685-1689 (5 pages)

    The article also notes:

    Corresponding Author: Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Kangwon National University, Korea.

    E-mail: [email protected]

    Received: October 22, 2018; Accepted: November 3, 2018

    Cunard (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found a free access version. Their "feasibility analysis" is based on hashrates from 2014. Any coin could have been easily 51% with present day machines if you go back far enough. It may have been worth mentioning if it was based on the current hashrate, especially since Vertcoin did get 51% attacked by the time the paper was published. The best use I see is adding the quote "Because it is not a very popular blockchain, the difficulty adjustment algorithm is very sensitive to hashrate change, making it an easy target to timestamp spoofing and cherry picking attack" to contrast with all the positive things those list articles said. Џ 07:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is a good addition to the article. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. The sourcing is in passing, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Sample: "Vertcoin: The Soaring Cryptocurrency Set to Surpass Bitcoin": David Muller's Vertcoin hopes to offer an alternative. Etc. Etc. This is all about company's hopes and aspirations & does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotionalism masquerading as an encyclopedia article based on equally promotionalist sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Requesting that this stay open for a little longer to wait for responses. @Redditaddict69: What are those search results then? @Rsrikanth05: You said "Keep per Valoem and Redditaddict69." Did you see my response to @Valoem:'s comment? Do either of you have anything it say about it? Because it essentially invalidates those three extra sources. Џ 05:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps someone can reduce the walls of horribly formatted text. Please have pity with the closing admin...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All source provided clearly pass our GN guidelines. I understand that cryptotraders want to limit the control of specific currencies due to financial reasons, unfortunately we cannot remove notable articles simply to curb the influence on trading. The coin passes GNG. Valoem talk contrib 13:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request : The practice of quoting extensively from sources makes the already strenuous project of AfD even more so. As I recall, practitioners of extensive quotation have been asked to refrain from it or, at least, use it sparingly. Let me applaud your efforts, fellow editors, since they clearly go above and beyond the call of duty, as they say, but please, pretty please, with sugar on top , help! There are hundreds of AfDs always going on and the wide adoption of such a practice would seriously impede their progress. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. I absolutely appreciate the effort that goes into this sort of research, but please understand that being so verbose makes it more difficult to comprehend. The human brain is wired to understand things in chunks. If you can't see an entire comment at once, it's harder to understand it. I'm working on an absurdly large 5K monitor, and some of the comments in this AfD are still too long to get onto a single screen without scrolling. It's going to be even worse for people on smaller screens, laptops, tablets, or even phones. Let me suggest a compromise; if you're going to provide these long quotes, at least wrap them in Template:Collapse blocks. Then, anybody who wants to read the whole thing can unhide the quote, but it's not eating up gobs of screen real-estate all the time. And, before you object to the idea that anybody would want to edit on a phone, consider that for a good chunk of the world, mobile devices are the only way most people access the internet. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard has been asked repeatedly not to filibuster AFDs in this manner. It may be time to collect examples and seek behavioural remedies if he continues to work so badly with others - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that. It has come to the point that I hesitate closing a debate if I see that Cunard is participating. It's just not worth my time to wade through all that widely-spaced text. --Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "filibuster" denotes sinister intentions. Let me be quite clear about that and state that I've never detected anything beyond zeal. And that's not simply because I observe WP:AGF but because Cunard's extensive quotation is evidently meant to support their view and not to "delay or entirely prevent a decision." -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good suggestion, RoySmith (talk · contribs). I have implemented it on this AfD.

Cunard (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Cunard, that's great. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Found a Wired Germany article: "Vertcoin fell victim to a 51 percent attack/Vertcoin wurde Opfer einer 51-Prozent-Attacke". Before anyone else comes in to say "keep per sources", could you say which ones? To me only IB Times, Wired Germany, and the Korean article (lesser than the previous two) can help establish notability. SemiAccurate may be a reliable source but I don't think the article "Why we benchmark with Vertcoin" (Why we like mining Vertcoin) is independent. The TechRadar, NBC News, and BBC articles are closer to minor coverage. Who would still want it kept if there was only that kind of coverage? Џ 15:02, 21 January 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vertcoin_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1254997874"