Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Gold

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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Gold[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence of notability, and practically all sourcing can be merged with 2018_double-spend_attacks_on_Equihash-based_cryptocurrencies. I cleaned up a significant portion of the article as well as added reliable sources, however I seriously question if it's even close to WP:GNG. Dr-Bracket (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historically Bitcoin Gold had a market capitalization of several billion dollars, and it is one of the major forks of Bitcoin. Ethanbas ^(talk) 04:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those things are enough to keep it. See WP:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV which had a "market capitalization" over $2 billion at one point. Џ 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Coverage when it launched in Fortune, CNBC, and Ars Technica. Coverage of its attack in Fortune and ZDNet. Articles in ZDNetand Business Review Romania about its Bittrex delisting. Џ 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say these sources might merit a keep. I'm unsure about the reliability of Buisness Review Romania, simply because I've never heard of it before, but the rest certainly checks out. Dr-Bracket (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Balkywrest (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient RS as noted above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal - it's utterly unimportant even in the world of cryptocurrencies, but it's had some RS mention - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; launch publicity does not translate to encyclopedic notability in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge with Bitcoin. Vorbee (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In particular, the date of the fork is useful. If the value of it continues to drop though, it will be of less interest in future. HighlyIrregular (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced, as well as bitcoin is a very important thing we must know about today, and any information that we can have on it would be good. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2019 (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.