User:Ysangkok/XfD log

This is a log of all

If you no longer wish to keep this log, you can turn it off using the

July 2020

1. AfD; notified Dmpop (talk · contribs
   ) 16:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Notability not established for file-syncing software only covered in niche media like LifeHacker and Linux magazines
2. AfD; notified Mat Lorn Seeker (talk · contribs
   ) 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Notability not established for this arbitrarily defined event. The article may as well have been called "2017 cryptocurrency spike", prices fluctuate and media will always frame it in the most dramatic way possible. That does not mean that this event was anything but a news story.
3. AfD; notified CyberSkull (talk · contribs
   ) 15:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Notability not established for niche software, deprecated over a decade ago, never covered in reputable media, unlikely to get coverage in future since product is dead.
4. AfD; notified 67.84.63.84 (talk · contribs
   ) 15:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Notability not established for research fork of popular BitTorrent client, abandoned many years ago, never got GNG coverage, unlikely to get coverage in future since project was abandoned. See also arguments of previous AfD.
5. AfD; notified Wrenville (talk · contribs
   ) 15:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Notability per GNG not established for yet another Bitcoin exchange. Was at AfD previously, result was delete, those arguments still apply.
6. AfD; notified The brown pill (talk · contribs
   ) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: The only proper articles written about this Bitcoin exchange were written when it was robbed. Wikipedia is not a news site, and a robbery does not warrant notability. Notability therefore not established.
7. AfD; notified Werneravr (talk · contribs
   ) 19:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Notability not established. Only covered in reputable media as a side note. TechCrunch is reputable, but a single article noting how much they raised does not make it pass GNG. The article in The Economist mentions BitX (old name) in just a single sentence at the very end of the article. The Baobab section of The Economist was a blog, and I don't think the article was ever printed.
8. AfD; notified Ysim (talk · contribs
   ) 02:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: WIth only two short mentions in reputable media (LATimes and NYTimes), coverage per
     WP:FILM
     has not been established. The synopsis is all original research, and the only sourced material is meta stuff like how the the film was developed. Since there is not enough source material to have a meaningful article, this article must be deleted.
9. AfD; notified Jni (talk · contribs
   ) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability per WP:GNG not established, only covered as novelty in reputable media
10. AfD; notified Unapersonacuriosa (talk · contribs
    ) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Reason: notability per WP:GNG not established for founder only covered in reputable media in connection with her company BitPesa, containing little personal information warranting a dedicated article for her
11. AfD; notified Wordpuissance (talk · contribs
    ) 16:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Reason: notability per
      BTCC
      founder covered only in connection with his company, not notable in isolation, reputable sources warrant no more than an article or two of information
12. AfD; notified Vipul (talk · contribs
    ) 16:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Reason: notability per
      WP:NCORP
      , coverage is isolated and limited to opening and funding rounds. Sources like "Interactive Investor" are not reputable. Their blog cannot be sourced, it is primary.

1. AfD; notified Yeetstuff (talk · contribs
   ) 21:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability per GNG not established. The only reputable source Le Monde only covers it with a single article with almost no citable information.
2. AfD; notified Emmetmclaughlin (talk · contribs
   ) 21:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability per GNG not established, sources are self-published and primary.
3. AfD; notified Inismor (talk · contribs
   ) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: basement store no more notable than any other walk-in store in NYC. does not pass GNG. Sources primarily about Stockman, (like e.g. the Texas Tribune source) only mention the center in passing. Sources like IBTimes are unreliable. The UCLA source only mentions the center in passing in two sentences. the mention in Reason Magazine is just a short three minute snippet, it is not significant coverage.
4. AfD; notified Cypheranarchy (talk · contribs
   ) 12:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: this small algorithm was adopted in a few places because of its use in Bitcoin, but it isn't notable, and no reliable sources exist, since the bar is higher for crypto articles. The current sources are primary, which is forbidden. The encoding is defined by a custom alphabet, which is arbitrarily chosen and never documented, and there is also a checksum, but I don't see why the addition of a checksum would make an encoding any more notable. See also the arguments of the previous AfD from last month, where consensus was established to delete this article.
5. RfD; notified Neoconfederate (talk · contribs); Target: Bitcoin
   (notified) 14:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: the page "Bitcoin" doesn't actually cover other Bitcoin wallets, so the redirect is useless
6. RfD; Target: Bitcoin
   (notified) 14:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: the page "Bitcoin" doesn't actually cover other Bitcoin wallets, so the redirect is useless
7. AfD; notified StephanKrot (talk · contribs
   ) 08:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established for yet another Bitcoin exchange with only business-media sources (sourced from press releases)
8. AfD; notified 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk · contribs
   ) 08:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established for blockchain company with media coverage mostly from press releases (not satisfying
     WP:ORGIND
     )

1. AfD; notified Stirling7 (talk · contribs
   ) 12:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established, article full of original research, it was covered only isolated and as a novelty in reputable media, this could be a list item, but a full article is not warranted
2. AfD; notified Chartouche (talk · contribs
   ) 17:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established, all sources derived from press releases. sources from reputable media like WSJ, Forbes are isolated and do not cover the subject in depth. Blogs like Disrupt Africa are pay to publish.
3. AfD; notified Lopifalko (talk · contribs
   ) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established, this project was covered only on launch in reputable media while blockchain was really hyped (2015). the project has stalled, notice how e.g. the documentation on the website is "coming soon", 5 years after launch. this is yet another blockchain vaporware product that was never notable in the first place, and was only covered in reputable media because of the hype. "the times of london" covered this because it is a london-based project. "imperial college london" is also biased, because that is where the founders met. this could be a list item in a list of defunct blockchain applications.
4. AfD; notified Suremine (talk · contribs
   ) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established, all sources are from launch or they are primary, or they violate
     WP:ORGIND
     . seems like just a one-time event, it is now discontinued and new sources will not appear.
5. AfD; notified 24.95.236.235 (talk · contribs
   ) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability per
     WP:ORGIND
     not established, sources are merely reprinting whatever the company has announced in the press releases, there is no original research. press releases do not establish notability.

1. AfD; notified 98.236.58.78 (talk · contribs
   ) 23:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established, most sources are actually about his company,
     Blockstack
2. MfD; notified Gralo (talk · contribs
   ) 17:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: listing is old, and listing is no longer referenced from Portal:energy
3. AfD; notified DistopiaNight (talk · contribs
   ) 01:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Per
     WP:NOTNEWS
     this token (now defunct) shouldn't be covered, since it is, and can only be interesting for its single appearance in news stories. Only notable source is the NYTimes which researched and covered this event. While well-researched, it does still not warrant an article, because it is just a single event.
4. Prokaryotes (talk · contribs
   ) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established, using primary self-published sources like github, other sources are not primarily about Larimer
5. AfD; notified Candy819 (talk · contribs
   ) 15:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established, sources are not reputable, the reuters article is not actually covering Vinny Lingham, it is about Civic (the company mentioned in this article)
6. CfD (CfM); notified N2e (talk · contribs); merging to: Category:People associated with cryptocurrency
   16:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: All of these people are associated with cryptocurrency, so it makes no sense to have a separate category.
7. AfD; notified Shawnleary (talk · contribs
   ) 22:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: Notability not established, only reliable sources are Japan Times and Wired, and they only cover it in their isolated pieces. The Japan Times piece is just reporting on a crime, and it doesn't provide any citable in-depth coverage of NEM. The Wired piece relies on statements by people involved in NEM, and Wired is a pop magazine, they cannot be trusted to verify claims about distributed consensus. The Forbes source is a blog, it cannot be cited. Sources must be satisfy
     WP:ORGIND
     , but they don't. See also the arguments of the previous deletion debate.
8. AfD; notified Patelchitral (talk · contribs
   ) 15:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability per
     WP:CORPDEPTH
     not established, sources are not reputable (bitcoin.com), primary blogs (zebpay blog), or not in-depth with no independent research (businesstoday.in)
9. AfD; notified Ramonthomas (talk · contribs
   ) 16:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established, sources are mostly unreliable and the rest are dead or not covering NeuNer. The only reputable source, CNBC, does not cover NeuNer himself, but simply quotes him. The other CNBC source is just a list of articles. The awards he received are not proof of notability. The Entrepreneur Magazine reference is dead. The Alumnus Profile reference is dead.
10. AfD; notified Rstats8108 (talk · contribs
    ) 16:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Reason: Notability not established, not covered by reputable sources. Huffington Post, which is only
      WP:NACADEMIC
      . Sources like banks.am are covering an event in Yerevan. It is industry media, covering an event that the owners of the website are likely affiliated with. It is therefore partial and not reputable.
11. AfD; notified Cnewbs (talk · contribs
    ) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Reason: notability not established, sources are not reputable, only reputable source is the single WSJ article, which is not enough to establish notability. The three sources mentioned by
      too early
      . The article contains dubious quotes like "The founders of two biggest ICOs — Bancor and Tezos — are females." without explaining what constitutes an ICO, and where this information comes from.
      The bar for crypto sources is higher, and all these sources are sub-par, I don't think they establish notability. Sites like these are covering a new person in the ecosystem every week. Wikipedia cannot contain articles about every single one of them.
      Titles like "queen of Bitcoin" makes her sound important, but this is just clickbait. In technology, notability should not be automatically established because someone is female. Technology media has a tendency to prop up women in a male-dominated field as "the only one" (which is something "queen" implies). It is a gimmick of technology media, and as can be seen, not even the WSJ is sober enough to abstain from it.
12. AfD; notified Shansav (talk · contribs
    ) 20:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Reason: notability not established, sources are not researching, the Mashable source mentioned in the previous AfD is sourcing Bitcointalk and Twitter, this cannot be considered reliable journalism. Also, there is no guideline saying that if a coin gets hacked twice and it gets covered, Wikipedia must include the article. There are tens of coins like this one. I am tempted to mention how the value of the coin has collapsed and almost no development is happening, but that is not how notability is established. Simply by applying the guidelines for reputable sources that we have, this article has no ground to stand on.
13. AfD; notified Parsley1972 (talk · contribs
    ) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Reason: notability not established, all sources are unreliable. The sources by Tekobbe/McKnight and Alcantara/Dick are primary, so they cannot be cited. Mashable is a blog, it has covered dozens of blockchains, but it sources forums and twitter, without doing any independent research. Indian Country Today is local news, only covering MazaCoin because it was supposed to be for the tribe. Newsweek is the only reputable source, but a single source isn't enough to establish notability.

1. AfD; notified Manazrt (talk · contribs
   ) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: exclusively bad sourcing, these do not establish notability. mostly churnalism. The most reputable are also not sufficient: The Forbes source is written by staff, but it is a list of 50 different projects, with just a single sentence for each of them. There is no original research, that can't have been the case if the "article" covers 50 projects. The Fortune article is not primarily covering Dragonchain, it is just a shout-out; and there is no citable info, the blurb does not establish notability. The Bloomberg source is a reprint from BusinessWire, which is simply printing whatever companies would like them to. This is not considered a reliable source elsewhere, we have had many examples of this. The article implies that it is written by Vision Tree Media which seems to have been contracted to do various PR projects for Dragonchain.
2. AfD; notified Bri (talk · contribs
   ) 17:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established, cannabis media cannot be used for notability, businesswire is churnalist, POSaBIT is not the primary focus of the remaining sources, there is not sufficient independent content for an article
3. AfD; notified 80.215.40.174 (talk · contribs
   ) 17:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established, sources are primary, self-published (Github), or do not contain any citable information about Steem (the Wired piece only lists the market cap, the rest is about Steemit). Investopedia is not neutral as can be seen from the tabloid headline (the link is also dead). Express.co.uk is a tabloid, cannot be trusted. SteemPeak is obviously not independent coverage. A block explorer cannot be cited, it is primary. FourWeekMBA is a owned by a venture company and cannot be trusted to be independent.
4. AfD; notified Erikabucb (talk · contribs
   ) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established, only in-depth coverage from reputable media like WSJ, Vox, Fortune and CNN is related to the hacking incident, which shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia per
     WP:NOTNEWS
     . The WSJ source doesn't even mention Voatz, as far as I can see.

1. AfD; notified Cakalang (talk · contribs
   ) 18:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established, see arguments of previous successful AfD

1. AfD; notified Tzahy (talk · contribs
   ) 06:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established, "first registered token IPO" does not warrant notability. sources are not guaranteeing notability. A mention in Calcalist or Globes is expected for any token launching from israeli initiative. these are all run-of-the-mill PR pieces that you can find covering every single token out there, it should require more to assert notability.

1. AfD; notified Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs
   ) 20:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
   • Reason: notability not established, no in-depth coverage by reputable media exists. See also arguments on previous AfD (result: delete), which are still valid.

1. AfD; notified Hocus00 (talk · contribs
   ) 21:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
   • Reason: Notability not established, tech blogs and Forbes/Bloomberg cannot be used to show notability. The sources cited do not contain original research, they are equivalent to PR reprints.

1. AfD; notified Allanthorvaldsen (talk · contribs
   ) 15:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
   • Reason: Notability not established, tiny company with lots of industry media sources that cannot be trusted to be unpartial

1. AfD; notified Danakil (talk · contribs
   ) 11:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
   • Reason: Only primary sources exist, which is not sufficient. Notability contested for a long time with no sign of notability likely to appear for defunct research project

1. AfD; notified McZusatz (talk · contribs
   ) 23:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
   • Reason: See previous discussion. Since Bitcoin Core defines a large part of what Bitcoin is, it makes no sense to have the distinction. In particular, I don't understand how the previous decision was overturned with no discussion