Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taler (cryptocurrency)

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. czar 05:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taler (cryptocurrency)

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

)

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

Non-notable, fails

WP:GNG

. No valid RS, mostly non-english sources. Possibly promotional. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. RS's are extremely thin. Definitely not a notable coin even in the cryptocurrency community,
talk) 06:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

DELETE: fails SIGCOV and NONENG ~~The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
- Ridculously false. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep. False nomination. satisfies
WP:SIGCOV. English-language sources exist, and some are cited. Google search easily shows sufficient number of reliable sources. Currently cited are naviny.by major belarus news portal, Capital Television state TV, etc. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment — Capital Television is a state-run organization and naviny.by appears to have some history of forced government intervention/influence. They shouldn’t be considered reliably independent sources, at least in this context, because the establishment of Thaler and other blockchain tech seems unusually dependent on the Belarusian government’s regulatory stance based on the references. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 18:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- State-run news media considered unreliable in political/news subjects. There is no reason to consider them unreliable in purely technical issues. There is no evidence that Thaler or their developers somehow related to government. In fact, the article suggessts the opposite: Taler was selected as currency by the opposition/trolling micronation Veyshnoria. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it is part of a government backed scam we should keep the article.Rathfelder (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlikely, because a noticed that the Taler website uses symbols used by belarusian opposition. I dont think that the govt is that smartass. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:TNT. Even if it's notable, the propaganda-filled citations make this article untenable. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
- Propaganda? YOu must be kidding. Show me a piece of propaganda in the article. This is a technical article, has no relation to politics or government. The developer tried to grab an opportunity coming from an undercooked govt idea of digitalization. (By the way, eventually the state did noting helpful.) Lembit Staan (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - RT is a site that has propaganda issues.
    talk) 19:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)^[1][reply
    ]

References

^ Erlanger, Steven (8 March 2017). "Russia's RT Network: Is It More BBC or K.G.B.? (Published 2017)". The New York Times.

- - - So what? This is a technical, not political article. Propaganda issues irrelevant. Correctness of technical facts is independent of political views of the publisher. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Really? Lembit Staan, reliably verifiable sources establish notability. Propaganda by its nature is designed to forcefully raise the notability of something. Those issues are very relevant to how reliable a source is. Nowhere is there a rule that says technical facts are immune to political influence. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It will be a surprize for you but technical facts are immune to political influence. Interpretations of facts are not. But in Wikipedia interpretations, i.e., opinions, require indicators authors of these opinions. Please show which statements in article are opinions. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, when I say technical “facts” here, I’m referring to their interpretations. But the point is that the validity of facts as interpreted by a secondary source can only come after establishing that the source is reliable. Sources with a history of propaganda or intrusive state interference cannot be reliable in determining a subject’s notability or verifying facts. Furthermore, Wikipedia’s principal is verifiability,
        WP:NOTTRUTH. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 18:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Delete as argued by
RT is deprecated.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per everything above. Gerald WL 17:03, 20 December 2020 (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.

[1]