Deletion of Worldcoin

Comment: 8th highest market capitalization among cryptocurrencies,http://coinmarketcap.com/mineable.html Ref and plenty of significant coverage in |reliable, independent |secondary sources to meet . (The promo matter is an editorial thing, I did a bit, and more is needed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:SECONDARY||WP:NCORP)

Comment: All the citations that meet  criteria appear to be passing mentions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: First of all, this article was already deleted once through the AfD process Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WorldCoin. I don't see substantial improvement in the current version and, more importantly, it still fails . The only reasonably reliable sources that I could find (or were mentioned above) are National Review, WSJ and MSNBC. All of them are just incidental mentions which do not count towards . The ZZNews link seems to be dead
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: or '''Move to Draft:Worldcoin'''. Fails to meet . Suggestion for Draft status is (1) because the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WorldCoin previous Worldcoin deletion didn't keep it deleted, whereas draft articles require editorial approval to move from draft back to publication, and (2) it's entirely possible this could become a notable topic. With 140+ cryptocurrencies, each with independent promoters trying to make money convincing people of their "legitimacy", there are ongoing efforts outside of Wikipedia (e.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/worldcoin/comments/1wd7gn/i_made_a_wikipedia_entry_tell_me_how_to_improve_it/ Reddit's thread to get Worldcoin on Wikipedia) to create Wikipedia articles to promote them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as a non-notable topic failing  with lack of reliable ''in-depth'' sources. Alternative coin lists or generic articles about coins (as with previous AfDs), where Worldcoin appears, are not in-depth sources, those are passing mentions or extremely brief generic descriptions. Looking at links above, the only substantial material is from opinion pieces and primary sources. Almost every article argued to be reliable (which by itself isn't enough) deals with multiple currencies and in none of them Worldcoin appears outside a small dedicated paragraph (and often copy paste of features). Market caps or any other niche field-only measure has nothing to do with notability. And definitely not subjective measures like "known", "legit", "reputable", etc. I see a large influx of new editors arguing this point above and only a couple of editors actually addressing the |notability guideline. Obviously promotion-driven arguments from pages like http://worldcoinforum.org/topic/594-wdc-wikipedia-easy-promotion-opportunity/ this or http://worldcoinforum.org/topic/544-wikipedia-page-gone/ this are unacceptable and I suspect a great deal of COI. —&nbsp;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N)

Comment: Yet another non-notable cryptocurrency, the MSNBC video is about bitcoin and only mentions this cryptocurrency. Only claim to fame is being one of many bitcoin competitors. Does not pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)