Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Ponzi scheme and pyramid scheme concerns


 * 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 redirect to Bitcoin. Consensus is that this is a POV fork and should not be kept as a separate article, but there's not consensus to delete it outright, as some think that content could be merged into Cryptocurrency. I'm therefore temporarily redirecting the article to the relevant main article section, leaving it to editors to figure out what, if anything, should be merged where to.  Sandstein  10:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin Ponzi scheme and pyramid scheme concerns

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like an original research without clear topic Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Exact copy of the same-titled section from the bitcoin article. Kerl126 (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 11:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 11:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete POVFORK for Bitcoin. While bitcoin may indeed be a pyramid/ponzi scheme - this should be addressed in the Bitcoin article and not in separate article with two separate concerns voiced.Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename I propose this article be renamed as "Cryptocurrency ponzi and pyramid scheme concerns." This article has a broader focus than bitcoin, athough much of the discussion is targetted at bitcoin. See and  with about 2 million google hits between them. While they are not all WP:RS, there certainly is enough to pass WP:GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then in which case it should be merged into the Cryptocurrency article, because it's an issue, as you pointed out, with cryptocurrencies in general. Just because someething has attention from the media does not mean that it should be a separate issue, if it more properly belongs as a subsection of the article - for example, there are criticisms of Apple over their taxes and over their labour policies, but you don't see "Apple tax dodging concerns and "Apple harsh labour policies concerns" as articles (both of which should suffice to have articles according to your views on WP:GNG, as in, ). With cryptocurrencies relatively new to the market, it should be addressed on the main page, and as the list of criticisms grow large enough, we can then fork out all the criticisms to a separate article Criticism of cryptocurrency (currently redirects to Cryptocurrency), as they did with the criticisms of Apple. 130.126.255.11 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see the merit of that explanation and agree with the content to be merged into Criticism of cryptocurrency. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge with Cryptocurrency per above. 130.126.255.11 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Cryptocurrency (where Criticism of cryptocurrency redirects), given the scope defined by both Jtbobwaysf and 130.126.255.11 and also the reliable sources that have discussed the subject. Lorstaking (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment My point was to restore the Criticism of cryptocurrency page, not the redirect and use this content to seed it. The issue we are facing is that there are critical editors that seek to add contnet and flame wars start as non-critical editors seek to delete that content. I think it would be best for WP:NPOV if there was a dedicated page that editors could explore these subjects, otherwise the crypto-enthusiasts will just simply delete this content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Cryptocurrencies are still relatively new, and the criticism section on cryptocurrency could use a some expansion, as of right now it is just a list of bullet points, so I don't feel it is the right time for a new article. As for the issue with edit warring and flaming on the page, have you tried talking to the other side and/or involving moderators and administrators to try to resolve the issues yet? 130.126.255.11 (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are very long discussions that range on this subject, and at the end of the day it comes back to an WP:NPOV & WP:WEIGHT issue. The haters want the article to be all hate related and the lovers want a love-fest. There is a point in the middle, but it is increasingly a challenge to mediate. Imagine if the democrats and the republicans needed to share the same wikipedia page. I know editors are supposed to keep their feelings out of it, but in practice it is a major challenge. Here is an example of one of the ongoing debates Talk:Bitcoin, and you can see from how long it is, that there are parties on both sides with strong feelings. The bitcoin page in particular might be a new technology (say less than 10 years), but still the page size is very large, and it is often used as an excuse to move content off of it. My suggesting new pages was an attempt to mitigate some of that (even if some of the editors dont end up liking the content being moved). Bitcoin is the subject of a lot of news coverage, so it is very easy to create new content with WP:RS, and thus where should the content be put? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. As stated above this article appears to be a POV attempt to pull material from the main article and hide it in this subarticle. The material could easily fit into a section in the main bitcoin article and there is not enough length to justify splitting it out. I do not agree with the proposal to merge this into the cryptocurrency article, as this text focuses on bitcoin specifically (hence, why it should be in the bitcoin article). Laurencedeclan (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. Please see these additional sources, in addition to User:David Gerard's book, Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain:
 * U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York (September 21, 2015) "Texas Man Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Operating Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme",Press Release.
 * U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (June, 2013) "Ponzi schemes Using virtual Currencies", Investor Alert, SEC Pub. No. 153.
 * Murphy, E.V.; Murphy, M.M., and Seitzinger, M.V. (October 13, 2015) "Bitcoin: Questions, Answers, and Analysis of Legal Issues", Congressional Research Service CRS Report R43339.
 * The Viking Cop (October 28, 2017) "Assessment of Cryptocurrencies and Their Potential for Criminal Use", Divergent Options.
 * Jacquez, T. (2016) "Cryptocurrency, the new money laundering problem for banking, law enforcement, and the legal system", Utica College dissertation.
 * Klimasinska, K. (June 12, 2015) "Terrorists Eyeing Bitcoin, Social Media to Fund Jihad, U.S. Says" Bloomberg News.
 * EllenCT (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the mention, though I should note that as a self-published book it probably doesn't yet pass the pretty high bar for use as a Wikipedia RS :-) However, it does have hundreds of footnotes, so should be useful as a pointer to sources for the blockchain/cryptocurrency articles. (Anyone who wants an ePub to pick over for Wikipedia purposes, [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com?subject=blockchain%20book%20for%20picking%20through%20for%20Wikipedia% email me] and I'll send you one.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Move - The article's content should be moved to a section of a new article called Criticism of cryptocurrency. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV fork. Neutral articles about cryptocurrencies (or any other controversial topics) emerge from collaborative work between the "lovers" and the "haters", to use Jtbobwaysf's terminology, following our policies and guidelines, and engaging in dispute resolution if necessary. Creating separate articles for the "lovers" and the "haters" would result in two sets of non-neutral articles rather than a single group of neutral articles. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge into Cryptocurrency for the rather good reasons given above. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename as proposed above to "Cryptocurrency ponzi and pyramid scheme concerns." Broader spectra then just bitcoin as suggested by some above. Deletion or merge would remove useful information.BabbaQ (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - POV fork. Merge anything worthwhile beforehand. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge - just a POV fork to be merged into the main bitcoin/cryptocurrency article.


 * 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.