Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisk (3rd 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 delete. Tone 16:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisk

[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 cryptocurrency. Twice deleted and not much has changed source wise. References are cryptocurrency "news" sites, three mentions in Forbes, and primary sources. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same as previous AFD: "Liskula Cohen has absolutely nothing to do with this, and it was listed there by automated means." Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be more notable than last time this came to AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 01:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lisk is ranked at 29 place on most crypto market sites (coinmarketcap,coinlore,livecoinwatch,coinlib), market cap is 314M and daily trading volume more then 4 milion $ it's traded at more then 20 crypto exchanges, I think it should not be deleted. I agree it's not as popular as Ethereum bitcoin or ripple, But lisk is popular for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gozames (talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Market cap does not imply notability; rather, significant independent reliable coverage does per the WP:GNG. As in previous deletes, this requirement has still not been met, so we should delete the article. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is crypto blogs of dubious reliability, and I just removed one pay-for-coverage site - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gozames is voting to delete the pages of other cryptocurrencies that compete with Lisk, sugesting that he has a financial incentive to promote Lisk coin. Interfacts (talk)
Delete None of the Forbes refs pass WP:SIGCOV, and two are from contributors rather than staff. The rest seem like self published/primary (Lisk.io, GitHub, CoinDesk reprint of PR, Microsoft Azure, a partner, and the CoinDesk interview piece). Cointelegraph has also been deemed unreliable. The only remaining source is on CoinCentral; if other editors think that's enough for a keep, fine, but I'm not swayed. Pegnawl (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2018 (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.