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.
Delete. Insufficient reliable sourcing in the article and as presented above. I myself performed a reasonable search
before I asserted my opinion in the DRV. I found nothing approaching WP:IRS. I'd be happy to look at this again if better sourcing is presented, and if Cunard could find something, I'd definitely want to see what has been found. As I've stated in the DRV (and for the record I recommended this AfD), websites like CoinDesk, CoinFront, and Cryptocoinnews lack independence (instead promoting alternative coinage as a business model) and reliability (being mostly fringe specialty journals and blogs). The Finance Magnates piece is a bare mention and doesn't directly detail; the usually reliable Business Insider (another bare mention) chooses to base the entire paragraph on this subject's creator to CoinDesk.
BusterD (
talk) 18:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. As an aside, based on contribution history, one user above is hardly in a position to trout other users for failing to find better sourcing before entering the AfD arena. That editor would be wise to stick to discussing the subject, not editors who disagree with them.
BusterD (
talk) 18:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)reply
They are independent sources having no connection to the subject itself. They are not being paid or promoted by Dogetipbot. News sources from Coindesk are certainly reliable by any means
another source.
Valoemtalkcontrib 18:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)reply
The author of the CCN article is Clay Michael Gillespie, who describes himself below the article as holding "a B.S. in Public Relations from Ball State University, and freelances for different clients in technology and cryptocurrency." He admits doing PR freelance work for the client.
The entire CoinFront team describes themselves as being alternative coinage advocates. These sorts of sources doesn't meet the standard for independence, IMHO.
BusterD (
talk) 18:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Coin Deck, Cryptocoinnews, CoinFront. These are all niche publications, with a very narrow focus on the bitcoin world. As such, what they lack is discrimination. If it's related to bitcoin, they print it. I don't see any of these as showing the subject to be notable. They need to be covered in the wider press. I'm not even holding out here for general interest publications. I'd probably be satisfied with some good coverage in financial or business media. Show me something in the Wall Street Journal. Or Crains. Or The Financial Times. The Economist. But not Joe's Random Bitcoin Website. They
couldn't even get TechCrunch to write about them.
Finance Magnates. This is an article about a service named Yours. The only mention of DogeTipBot comes in the 4th paragraph, This feature is similar to other content tipping items that are popular on Reddit such as the bitcoin ChangeTip bot or DogeTipBot. That's hardly significant coverage.
Business Insider. This is an article about yet another service, TransferWise. The only mention is in the eight paragraph, Harsher words come from Robert Mohland, who built dogetipbot, an tipping tool that lets users tip others with digital currencies online. Again, just a passing mention.
In short, coverage in niche publications, plus passing mentions in somewhat larger scoped publications, does not add up to being notable. --
RoySmith(talk) 22:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)reply
PS: I don't see any mention in
Reddit of any of the tipping services, so a redirect there doesn't seem to make sense, given the current state. However, if there were a Tipping bot services section in
Reddit, which listed the various services available, then I'd say go for the redirect. --
RoySmith(talk) 18:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete or perhaps smerge to
Reddit, no real notability and sources are limited quality and passing mentions.
Stifle (
talk) 08:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and possibly redirect to
Reddit. Otherwise, non notable service with insufficient coverage to meet GNG.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 05:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose redirect to
Reddit. The Reddit article doesn't mention or discuss "Dogetipbot" so having a redirect there would be misleading. --
Tavix(
talk) 03:55, 9 August 2016 (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.