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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xiasi Inu (cryptocurrency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Cryptocurrency with no reliable sources that support notability. Draft:Xiasi Inu (cryptocurrency) already exists. Singularity42 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete XIASI - This article does not contain any information that has anything to do with notability of the cryptocurrency. It probably wasn't written to be encyclopedic, but to be promotional. The last sentence, "It also give benefits to its long term holders", is nothing more or less than advertising. The article was moved to draft space by a reviewer, and the originator promptly created another copy in article space. The reviewer then proposed the deletion of the article. The originator promptly removed the PROD tag with no explanation, which is their privilege, but appears to be a silent explanation that the whole purpose of the article is to peddle the cryptocurrency.
  • An analysis of the references shows that they are just as useless as the article. They are either about the breed of dog that the cryptocurrency is named for, or are corporate information, or are market information. There is no secondary coverage:

• • This article is without encyclopedic value. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Little to no encyclopaedic value or evidence of notability –DMartin 07:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads more like an advertisement than an article on an encyclopedia. Little evidence of notability. The user who created this article seems to be way too defensive. When a bot re-added the AFD, he promptly removed it and said "Discussion is closed. And this Article is now eligible for Publishing because bunch of References. You need to Delete its draft . Please don't disturb and not spoil trash on this Page. Thanks". ShiriEdits (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2022 (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.