Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogetipbot

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 redirect to Dogecoin. J04n(talk page) 17:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dogetipbot

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

This was deleted per WP:CSD#A7 but restored as as a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 25 which decided that it should be listed here. Procedural nomination - I express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I myself was going to PROD, nothing at all actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 15:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reddit. No notability demonstrated to warrant a stand alone article. Class455fan1 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Class455fan1 (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, Coin Deck, Cryptocoinnews, CoinFront, Finance Magnates, Business Insider. And trout the two editors above for doing no research. Also @Cunard: for additional sources. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient reliable sourcing in the article and as presented above. I myself performed a reasonable search before I asserted my opinion in the DRV. I found nothing approaching WP:IRS. I'd be happy to look at this again if better sourcing is presented, and if Cunard could find something, I'd definitely want to see what has been found. As I've stated in the DRV (and for the record I recommended this AfD), websites like CoinDesk, CoinFront, and Cryptocoinnews lack independence (instead promoting alternative coinage as a business model) and reliability (being mostly fringe specialty journals and blogs). The Finance Magnates piece is a bare mention and doesn't directly detail; the usually reliable Business Insider (another bare mention) chooses to base the entire paragraph on this subject's creator to CoinDesk. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As an aside, based on contribution history, one user above is hardly in a position to trout other users for failing to find better sourcing before entering the AfD arena. That editor would be wise to stick to discussing the subject, not editors who disagree with them. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are independent sources having no connection to the subject itself. They are not being paid or promoted by Dogetipbot. News sources from Coindesk are certainly reliable by any means another source. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the CCN article is Clay Michael Gillespie, who describes himself below the article as holding "a B.S. in Public Relations from Ball State University, and freelances for different clients in technology and cryptocurrency." He admits doing PR freelance work for the client. The entire CoinFront team describes themselves as being alternative coinage advocates. These sorts of sources doesn't meet the standard for independence, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Redirect to Dogecoin#Use and exchanges Let's look at the sources provided above by Valoem:

Coin Deck, Cryptocoinnews, CoinFront. These are all niche publications, with a very narrow focus on the bitcoin world. As such, what they lack is discrimination. If it's related to bitcoin, they print it. I don't see any of these as showing the subject to be notable. They need to be covered in the wider press. I'm not even holding out here for general interest publications. I'd probably be satisfied with some good coverage in financial or business media. Show me something in the Wall Street Journal. Or Crains. Or The Financial Times. The Economist. But not Joe's Random Bitcoin Website. They couldn't even get TechCrunch to write about them.
Finance Magnates. This is an article about a service named Yours. The only mention of DogeTipBot comes in the 4th paragraph, This feature is similar to other content tipping items that are popular on Reddit such as the bitcoin ChangeTip bot or DogeTipBot. That's hardly significant coverage.
Business Insider. This is an article about yet another service, TransferWise. The only mention is in the eight paragraph, Harsher words come from Robert Mohland, who built dogetipbot, an tipping tool that lets users tip others with digital currencies online. Again, just a passing mention.

In short, coverage in niche publications, plus passing mentions in somewhat larger scoped publications, does not add up to being notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't see any mention in Reddit of any of the tipping services, so a redirect there doesn't seem to make sense, given the current state. However, if there were a Tipping bot services section in Reddit, which listed the various services available, then I'd say go for the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After Cunard's merge, the redirect makes sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps smerge to Reddit, no real notability and sources are limited quality and passing mentions. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly redirect to Reddit. Otherwise, non notable service with insufficient coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect to Reddit. The Reddit article doesn't mention or discuss "Dogetipbot" so having a redirect there would be misleading. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dogecoin. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Anarchyte, maybe smerge. I think Dogecoin makes more sense as a target than Reddit would. ansh 666 19:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Dogecoin#Use and exchanges because Dogetipbot is a use of Dogecoin. I agree that Dogecoin is a better target than Reddit. I have completed a merge. The content is sourced to primary sources, Tech-Recipes, and CoinDesk. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2016 (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.