Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quark Coin

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quark Coin

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

Article was tagged for a G4 speedy deletion, but I removed it based on the fact that the article looks mostly different from it's deleted counterpart. However, I still feel that while it can evade speedy criteria, that it doesn't clearly establish notability per WP:GNG. Only reliable sources are from Heavy and Russia Today, and RT only mentions Quark in passing. I am neutral. [citation needed] 22:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has been rewritten but suffers from the exact same issue as the last version deleted a week ago, insufficient sources to demonstrate notability, which is why I proposed speedy deletion. The RT Keiser Report episode is not a reliable source, it is an opinion piece. It starts with a disclaimer where RT explicitly distances itself from the content. Heavy.com is an entertainment website, not a news source, and the linked article is another opinion piece. Smite-Meister (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Quark Coin is the fourth largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization. It has received significant coverage in the cryptocurrency world. I don't see why it is un-notable. Without making the Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS too much, articles about more copycat, less original, less significant Cryptocurrencies exist. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's notable then demonstrate it with reliable sources. I don't really get your point of first pointing out Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and then resorting to that particular fallacy anyway. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quark Coin is a pump and dump scam at worst, and presents no novel development or features at best. Regarding Max Keiser's opinion on Quark, Max is (to my understanding) an early holder of Quark and it is speculated he was "incentivised" for his opinion and publicity, which makes anything from him incredibly unreliable. VinceSamios (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We do document bad things in Wikipedia as well. The question to answer at AfD is whether it meets WP:GNG. Withholding my judgement on that for the moment. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did my own search but this one is mostly covered in passing in "also ran" articles like [1] [2]. heavy.com's coverage is somewhat more detailed, but also in a group article. I'd not give it much weight because of the questionable qualifications of the author. It would be fine to include Quark Coin in a list with at most a paragraph of explanation perhaps, but a standalone article doesn't seem justified just yet. (As an aside, reading Max Keiser's bio quickly shows he can't be considered a reliable source on any financial matter.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete like above, thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2013 (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.