- 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 merge to Igor Rivin. Sandstein 18:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- CCI30 (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)
No indication of significance and little to no reliable, independent coverage, let along WP:SIGCOV. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I considered nominating this myself - the article is entirely unsourced (just an EL to the subject's website), and I couldn't find any sources online that I thought would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I not too familiar with sources for cryptocurrency stuff though, so I just tagged it - agree that is should be deleted, unless someone cleverer than me can come up with some cast-iron sources. GirthSummit (blether) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]- Weak keep, just - yeah, I'm as surprised I'm saying "keep" as you are. But, while having no mainstream coverage, it seems to have a bit of peer-reviewed academic coverage. I've added cites to the article for substantive papers about, dealing with or using the CCI30. There's also this [1] that I don't have access to, but is apparently a peer-reviewed conference proceeding - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- David Gerard, I don't have access to those. Are they about the index or usage of the index or do they only use/mention the index? Does it meet WP:SIGCOV? StudiesWorld (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Try Sci-Hub. Blumpf (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Check your Wikipedia email :-) The papers are paywalled, but they're available if you look in some obvious places. They're not about CCI30 - they don't talk about it as an interesting object in itself - but they treat it as a useful index for their work. Not passing mentions, is what I mean. (I found multiple passing mentions, but didn't list those.) Only two papers so far, I'll look a bit further later. Borderline at present, let's say - David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- David Gerard - Thanks for finding those! I do think that they may show that they deserve some coverage. However, one of the papers also looks at some other indexes, so maybe the solution is to move it to Cryptocurrency index and expand with discussion of other indexes. How would that sound to you? StudiesWorld (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what others rate discussion ... the Coinbase one? That's covered all it needs in Coinbase - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I've struck my delete vote above, since it appears that someone cleverer than me has indeed come along :). The sourcing isn't exactly cast-iron CORPDEPTH stuff, but it does show that it has academic credibility and so is probably notable in an WP:IAR sort of way. The proposed alternative of creating a list of such indices, which would presumably have to include ones that are more dubious and poorly sourced than this one, just to house the information in this article seems like a lot of work, and I'm not clear on what the benefit would be - probably better just to keep a stub about this one, with the current sourcing plus anything further that David Gerard is able to dig up. GirthSummit (blether) 12:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Igor Rivin, the co-creator. Blumpf (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Igor Rivin. Given the way crypto articles are used and abused and the lack of actual independent notability - despite being cited in the two mentioned papers - suggests it should not be an independent article. However, merge/redirect to Rivin as its creator seems like a reasonable WP:ATD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge: There was very little in the CCI30 article, so I just went ahead and put the info into the Igor Rivin article where there was already a lead-in for it. Not everything needs its own article; Wikipedia has a bang-up search engine to find articles which mention things (like CCi30). No need to have the 'thing' in a title in order to find it. -- Nomopbs (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2019 (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.