Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Fog

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 merge to Cryptocurrency tumbler. The majority does not think that the subject warrants a standalone article, but by merging the information is preserved. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Fog

[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)

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products and services. Notorious scam site: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50037.620 分液漏斗 (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge content somewhere suitable - it seems to have gained RS coverage, making it likely a notably notorious scam. That said, it's very short, and might benefit from being part of a longer article - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bitcoin, perhaps under Bitcoin#Security? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a somewhat notable mixer, so cryptocurrency tumbler seems a good place to put this - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It only appears to be notable in the context of a particular theft, and it's only a minor aspect of the story even then. The general concept of a cryptocurrency tumbler is encyclopedic, but I don't really think that this particular one is by itself. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give some consideration for straight delete or alternate action
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an example of technical esoterica that finds little traction in the establishment press, but which is of interest to historians. It would be a gross disservice for such material to vanish down the memory-hole. --2601:444:380:8C00:1FC:1845:1C64:DAD6 (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC) <just.another.IP.user>[reply]
Delete - How is this of any historical value? Why does this matter for an article with zero reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an example of fraudulent bitcoin behavior that helps to tell the story of how the bitcoin craze developed in its first decade, for good and for ill. It is of historical value to people who want to understand the history of bitcoin exploitation. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Toughpigs: Shouldn't it be merged with Cryptocurrency tumbler, then? BonkHindrance (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to cryptocurrency tumbler. Where's the WP:SIGCOV? I'm not seeing any. Lots of brief mentions and unreliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to cryptocurrency tumbler, the current article contains lots of brief mentions and unreliable sources, not much in the way of actually passing GNG. However, it probably deserves a sentence or so in the cryptocurrency tumbler article, which it does not currently have. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . It's just not notable, and only one of many mixers that have existed. I'd love to see more expansion on cryptocurrency tumbler. Nanite (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2020 (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.