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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kilocoin[edit]

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

Non-notable p2p currency. Created by single purpose account with clear conflict of interest. Fails general notability guideline. ― Padenton|✉ 00:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional and COI. Eeekster (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 00:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 00:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, I can find no coverage at all. Esquivalience ^t 00:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems reasonable, aside from the username. 00:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.6.168 (talk) — 209.197.6.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - cryptocurrency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Ref provided do not mention subject. ELs provided may, but none are WP:RS the standard is not reasonableness but notability. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - orphan creator indefinitely blocked at first (=this) attempt. BTW, if it's really bad enough for an indefinite block, why no speedy? Also doing http://kilocoffee.com apparently active since 2011, quote "KiloCoin.com is hosted in Panama", unquote, and a virustotal "phishing site" report are the most juicy Google hits. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The block is only for the inappropriate username. I'm not sure the article meets any speedy criteria. ― Padenton|✉ 17:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG. Unable to find any sources whatsoever that establish notability. APerson (talk!) 01:00, 4 May 2015 (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.