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. Sandstein 18:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisk (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)

Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. The article is supported largely by original research and unreliable sources. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have significant in-depth coverage. Please note I have not found much other than promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for additional sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Liskula Cohen has absolutely nothing to do with this, and it was listed there by automated means. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is a lot of material here, but all of it looks like OR or promotion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not enouhg indepth to satsify the GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no in-depth coverage in reputable sources, therefore not notable. Retimuko (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has not received SIGCOV in RS. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:09, 20 March 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.