Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SwiftCoin

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 Consensus is too delete. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SwiftCoin

SwiftCoin (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)

Nearly all references are from cryptocurrency "news" sites or otherwise not reliable. Best sources are this short article on an African tech magazine site that was viewed less than 1,000 times and an even shorter article on an Uruguay news site which is about their business getting hit by a car. Translation has no mention of "swiftcoin". Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This comment from Morgan Ginsberg is fake news. It is also subtly racist by suggesting that an African website is not a worthy news source about technology. The word Swiftcoin is literally on the first line of the first paragraph of the Finextra reference [1] and this investors directory reference[2] and the AM Bankers reference [3] and this crypto site reference[4] Interfacts (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. For more of the same, check out the entry for Solidus_Bond (apparently a SwiftCoin exchange), created by the same editor. Pegnawl (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for completeness, I tried to look for some other coverage of SwiftCoin. A search of Google News yields a few references in real news sites 1 2 3 but they are rather trivial mentions, all parts of long lists of cryptocurrencies. There are no results for "SwiftCoin" upon search of the Cryptology ePrint Archive which is used to distribute academic works in cryptography. I found a few academic surveys of cryptocurrencies 4 5 upon a search of Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar. The following report to what I believe is a Peruvian government agency has two pages on SwiftCoin (but is of course in Spanish) 6. This is all I could find about SwiftCoin in reliable mainstream (i.e. non-cryptocurrency-devoted) sources.BenKuykendall (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice finds, but looking closer at them makes me think most of them mentioned Swiftcoin only because they saw it on Wikipedia. The Swiftcoin article was made in July 2017 and only the Peruvian paper (which is the best) and this mention (which is the worst, "Etherium" is spelled wrong) were published before.

• Comment The above comment by BenKuykendall is pure FUD and fake news. The Cryptology ePrint Archive[5] has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with cryptocurrency and was not used as a reference for this article. The obscure Peruvian website[6] entitled "Electronic Money in Peru," was NOT used as a reference for this article. Interfacts (talk)

• "Litecoin is the second oldest cryptocurrency in the world along with Namecoin and SwiftCoin. All the three virtual currencies were launched in 2011" Looks like the writer just checked out List of cryptocurrencies and mentioned the three that were launched in 2011.
• "According to Wikipedia, there are at least 34 such currencies – litecoin, swiftcoin, namecoin, ether, ubiq, etc. – and only one has ceased operations."
• This academic survey uses List of cryptocurrencies and a few other Wikipedia articles as references.
• The other academic survey is only a mention in a footnote. "Apart from Bitcoin, there are several cryptocurrencies such as Litecoin, Peercoin, Swiftcoin, Peercoin, and Ripple." Peercoin is listed twice and I think they just copy and pasted a few of the first ones they saw on the list and didn't notice their mistake. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The above comment is still more fake news. The academic paper[7] was NOT used as a reference for this article! This "reference" offered by Mr. Ginsburg doesn't even mention Swiftcoin in the text. It takes a lot chutzpah to insert fake article references into an AfD page, Mr. Ginsburg. Interfacts (talk)

• Delete Agree with above. LikeMeercats (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - at best a WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Swiftcoin has reasonable real news coverage and qualifies under WP:GS/Crypto.[8][9][10][11][12] According to List of cryptocurrencies, there are at least 41 such currencies – litecoin, swiftcoin, namecoin, Bytecoin, Peercoin, etc. SwiftCoin is considered to be an active cryptocurrency, – and only one has ceased operations.--Felmö (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can you expand on how WP:GS/Crypto has anything to do with this discussion? Of the refs you provide, the first three include SwiftCoin on a list only (failing WP:CORPDEPTH), Cointelegraph is decidedly not RS per the RS Noticeboard, and the International Business Times piece doesn't even mention Swiftcoin. Pegnawl (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment International Business Times talks about Swiftmail. SwiftCoin = Swiftmail, they are the same thing, with two names.[13] And here again, swiftmail is on the SwiftCoin blockchain[14] Significance: First encypted communication system that is decentralized. The security of the mail is done by blockchain, not a central authority. So, it is notable. It is not the same as other cryptocurrencies. Lastly: the first 3 references have a short list of notable cryptocurrencies that either compete with or are distinct from bitcoin. This is supportive of notoriety. --Felmö (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to their own FAQ, SwiftCoin ≠ SwiftMail. As for the lists, they won't satisfy most editors as they fail WP:SIGCOV. Pegnawl (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment More fake news to get a wikipedia page deleted. The website[15] and related news coverage announce encrypted mail sent over the Swiftcoin blockchain. The press coverage is not just copy and paste from press releases. The Swiftmail FAQ [16] even has a picture of a 32 character alphanumeric Swiftcoin wallet address as opposed to a 34 character bitcoin wallet address. The first encrypted mail sent over a blockchain is indeed notable and explains John McAfee's alleged interest in the project, even if he distanced himself later because he demanded more money from the developers of the project. Interfacts (talk)

• Delete I can't find any info about this coin on any market cap sites, I even can't find any exchange where it's traded. So my vote is for delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gozames (talk • contribs) 03:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Gozames has an undisclosed conflict of interest. He advocates for other cryptocurrencies competing with the topic of this AfD. [17] Gozames is also on a sanctions list. [18]Interfacts (talk)

• Delete Not much can be said about this. funplussmart (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What can be said is that a huge amount of FUD and fake news is being put out in a coordinated effort to get a page deleted. Part of the effort is motivated by proponents of other cryptocurrencies, as per GozamesInterfacts (talk)

• Delete. All the references point towards Cryptocurrencies, swiftcoin is just a mention with no reliable independant source so fails NOTABILITY.But cryptocurrencies usage in money transaction is on the rise- so will suggest WP:TOOSOON , because this topic may become relevant in future.Vinodbasker (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not so. Not all the references are from sites dedicated to cryptocurrencies. On October 24, a new section was created to improve the article, including the book Blockchain Quick Reference: A guide to Exploring Decentralized Blockchain^[1][2] While a United States patent, a United States trademark and mention in a reference book do not, per se, denote notability, the totality of the evidence does denote notability because it is highly unusual for a cryptocurrency to be granted a patent and trademarked by a government. That said, wikipedia articles about a new technology will inevitably get their best references from media sites dedicated to coverage of their industry. General news sites don't usually report about something unless there is a controversy or something salacious. For example with bitcoin, there is general news coverage when there is an indictment for a Ponzi scheme. The notability and utility of a technology is not what guides editorial decisions at CNN, FOX or WaPo. Interfacts (talk)

• Keep - The article is notable because it has many references and the article has been on wikipedia for over one year. People need a reliable source of information about Swiftcoin. comment added by User:keerti.kasat 17:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just did a complete source check. Nearly all the sources are bad - mostly sourced to personal blogs, bitcoin blogs or primary sources. I removed a pay-for-play outlet. This article is badly-sourced puffery even by the standards of crypto articles. If it were cut down to RSes it would be two lines - David Gerard (talk) 18:26, 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.