Talk:Dogecoin

Contested deletion

Why did the deletion warning get re-posted and all the dozens of talk comments for recommendations not to delete the article removed? The community has already spoken. There is no need or reason for deletion. There is one user with an axe to grind, who keeps suggesting this article be deleted. On top of it, why is the article now locked? It makes no sense. Someone is having a power trip.

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because I don't disagree that it could benefit from more editing, but deletion doesn't make sense to me. It certainly exists, however it came to exist, and it's being used and discussed and mined in the cryptocurrency community. Plus, other coins have articles with barely any sources other than documentation by the developers backing it up. If deletion has to be considered, it would be more reasonable to nominate at AfD, or even more reasonable to send it to the Article Incubator or move back into my userspace. Remember, deletion was also considered for Litecoin, and it ended up being sent into the Incubator. Look where it is now. --[citation needed] 00:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

As a warning to newcomers posting on the discussion page, remember that while your opinions are respected, this is not a vote but rather a reach for concensus. [citation needed] 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed spam. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the OP - Dogecoins are a real thing and as such I'm confused as to what possible reason there could be to delete an article about it. Real people spend real time and effort to mine this new currency and I've personally seen people spend money (in form of Bitcoin and Litecoin but also paypal transfers (USD and EUR) to sell and purchase this new currency. True there is (so far) only one portal that allows official exchange but Dogecoin users are currently already trading the thing among each other (approx. 1 USD/1000 dogecoins as of the time of writing this post) --106.187.52.85 (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why delete it? It's a real currency. It exists. This is not an article that is uninformative or parodied. Deleting it will actually make it harder for people to find info about Dogecoin. 124.171.112.111 (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Users 106.187.52.85 and 124.171.112.111, I agree that this article should exist (or perhaps be merged into an article about altcoins) but I don't think the arguments you've made don't hold much water on Wikipedia. See WP:BIT, WP:ENN and WP:IHN. My understanding is that any argument either for or against keeping this article should be put in terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, much as how arguments in a court of law should be put in terms of applicable law. For instance, perhaps there is a pro-keep argument to be made based on WP:NOTLEVEL. Perhaps a pro-merge (into an altcoin article) argument could be made based on WP:POKEMON. — 24.72.57.68 (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

http://investorplace.com/2013/12/sick-virtual-currency-bitcoin-meet-dogecoin/ <- Here is another real news source covering dogecoin.

WP:PUPPET RainbowDashite (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For some reason I can't post in the original discussion. Just thought I'd mention that dogecoin is now on the front page of The Verge. http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/16/5216862/bitcoin-is-so-2013-dogecoin-is-new-crypto-currency-on-the-block <spanw style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.62.142 (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm going to disagree with everyone. I don't think "dogecoins" are notable enough for an article. -- Jdc1197 - (talk · userpage · contributions) 02:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There are countless cryptocurrencies forked from Bitcoin that either have a very small market share or experience short-term growth before fading into obscurity. The only thing DogeCoin has going for it is the fact that it's based on an Internet meme and that it has been created as a satire of Bitcoin and the community surrounding it. So no, I don't think Dogecoin is notable enough to have an article. Not yet, anyway. Matoking (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

New source, not a blog, in Norwegian, though it simply mentions Dogecoin and links to The Verge piece, in an article about the recent Bitcoin crash. http://www.na24.no/article3728815.ece Nettavisen is one of the oldest online-only news media in Norway, and are owned by Egmont and A-Pressen, large newspaper and media companies. 2001:700:300:1900:F851:930E:BCB2:5DD8 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Dogecoin should not have it's own article. In order to use Dogecoin, you must have a working Gentoo GNU/Linux install, which very few people have. --108.2.117.168 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The market capitalization for dogecoin keeps going up, so I vote for keeping the article. Nekng (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Put the picture of the dog in circle on the article

Rather than pic of a client. You should. 81.157.162.39 (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2013

wow! nano means 10^(-9) so it's not 0.000 000 01 as is in article but 0.000 000 001 [DOGE]. please repair it in subunit section. So much thanks! 89.68.16.221 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done --ElHef (Meep?) 23:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)