Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MazaCoin (4th nomination)

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 keep. In particular, H pointed out two scholarly sources that have significant coverage of this topic. No one has rebutted that these sources are not reliable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MazaCoin

[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)

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. There was a flurry of sources in 2014 (see the first AfD), but they are all just reporting on a single event, see e.g. The Telegraph. WaPo dedicates only a single sentence to MazaCoin. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well written article with references. PumpkinEditore (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC) Struck !vote by sock of User:Kingshowman. Favonian (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PumpkinEditore: Welcome to Wikipedia, PumpkinEditore! I explained my problems with the references in my nomination. Can you explain why these sources are reputable? I explained how e.g. Mashable is not doing any independent journalism, merely reporting whatever they saw on Twitter. The sources do not become reputable because you claim the article is well-written. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Mashable article isn't even an article - it's an inclusion of a video. The Newsweek article is post-2013, in their unreliable period. Indian Country Today is local coverage, but not enough to swing an article on, even with the two papers. There just isn't the detail here to show notability - David Gerard (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Newsweek_(2013-present) says "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis" and I don't see any issue with that article. Ҥ (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mashable has staff writers and editors so it's more than just a "blog." There's a written article in addition to the video.

Article in First Monday about Mazacoin.

Has significant coverage in Canadian Journal of Law and Society. ("Mazacoin" appears about 38 times, not including the references) Ҥ (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this article lacks enough sources a simple Google search brings up many more. I just added this Coindesk.com source. It amazes me how some editors quickly decide an article is not notable without doing any further searching. There are plenty of other sources, mainly from industry publications, which can be considered peered reviewed and notable. If I get a chance I will improve this article myself. There is also this article in The Verge. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC) Note: I also just found a Newsweek article and have added it. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Coindesk is a generally unreliable source, and is flagged as such at WP:RSP. It is not usable as evidence of notability, and doesn't belong in the article. Do you have solid RSes that clearly meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH? - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was agreed to be kept on its first 2 AfDs. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated in the AfDs and above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: you're just hinting at reliable sources without pointing them out. Tell me your favorite and I'll tell you why it is not sufficient. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:03, 5 November 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.