Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIVX

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PIVX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted as it does not meet the WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search did not find any reliable sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think this does meet WP:GNG criteria. It covers a subject that I know nothing about, but I found this Bitcoin Buzz source which mentions that it is a fork of DASH, and it is a quoted company with a market capitalisation of $47 million. It is mentioned here as one of four cryptocurrencies which operate a masternode system, and here, here, here. These may not be ideal sources, but they show it is in the news, people are interested in it, and therefore it is a good topic for an encyclopedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete - This is a brief but accurate description of this cryptocurrency. I think that this article - PIVX fork of DASH - meets WP:GNG requirements.— Randomaccess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as the subject appears to fail to meet our notability requirements. The sources found by Cwmhiraeth are all either not independent from the subject or not considered reliable for our purposes here, I'm afraid. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel confident that this huffington post article is a reliable source. Dude6935 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's based on a press release though, Dude6935, so is not independent of the subject and therefore doesn't contribute to establishing notability. See WP:GNG on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I missed that it was a press release. Dude6935 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:GNG . Most sources I found were PR type or routine mentions. LibStar (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam on an subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2017 (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.