OK What the FUCK. I will personally make sure those are deleted if Anoncoin won't be there. We're fucking mentioned by NYTimes, The Economist, The Wired, Nasdaq(!!!).
Bounty: 100 ANC for either:
1) Make sure Anoncoin is back on Wikipedia for good. Arguments like WTF does those above do there without beeing mentioned by "small" companies like NYTimes, The Economist, The Wired and Nasdaq(!!!).
OR,
2) Remove all other coins and let them stay deleted because of same reasons as the Anoncoin page.
If you don't know what Nasdaq is, it' those who has a stock marked for BIG companies.. E.x Microsoft, Facebook and Google(AFAIK)?
Make it today or within 72hours starting now? Earn 15 ANC extra. EDIT: No fuck say 25 ANC, those fuckers above are all younger coins than Anoncoin, and should be seen more as copycat and shitcoins than Anoncoin which at least started BEFORE the fucking "I want my own coin" -hype.
(If mods are cooky and it's a public discussion ongoing, this will still be paid if the deadline runs out if the person actually give it all agains the mods.(If they want war, give them fucking war))
Tip; read the Anoncoin evaluation to see what we did wrong on first try.
References;
https://forum.anoncoin.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=454Other places announced;
https://sigterm.no/blog/85/About payment;
Payment will be done when we're sure the page won't be deleted. Either in form that we argue with WHY other shitcoins, or yea.. It must has been "ACCEPTED" by a moderator as a final, and no "sandbox" evualiation.A great person here gave us some info;
Wikipedia is notorious for deleting new pages, however, although it may seem inconsistent with some pages that exist, and assuming no bias, there are specific requirements that they look for in allowing a page to exist there. A publicity or opinion page will be removed almost as soon as seen by mods, usually with an explanation and it being placed in a 'sandbox' area (I might be using wrong term here). What wikipedia likes for inclusion in their site are 'notable' references. This means links to articles or papers that differentiate it from other similar products (and there are loads of crapcoins out there probably doing the same thing). Attempts to do this prematurely can lead to bias. Best strategy for inclusion in wikipedia is to wait until the previously mentioned bounty article is published on a crypto news site. Links to this and technical articles on the wiki assist the wikipedia mods in establishing 'notability'.
Having some experience with wikipedia in the past with another coin, led me to bow out and leave it to someone else, as there is a lot of back and forth between the mods who sandbox it, and the individual who is trying to comply with their requests. It is a case of too many cooks spoil the broth. Getting an article on wikipedia is a task that requires some dedication, patience and catering to mods opinions, and quite a few hours over several days.