Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Private


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin Private

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable cryptocurrency. At this point the article serves as an ad for a failing "project" and there aren't good enough sources to explain why it's a failing project. There was "Rhett Creighton - The "Serial Forker" Now Wants Bitcoin Prime". Then "Hacker Livestreams 51% Attack on Bitcoin Private" which is a big deal for a cryptocurreny but no mainstream coverage though it was later referenced in a CoinDesk article "This College Freshman Is Out to 51% Attack Your Cryptocurrency". And recently "Coinmetrics report: Over 2 million Bitcoin Private tokens were covertly premined, breaking the 21 million supply cap" also a big deal that I doubt will get non-crypto news coverage. Џ 06:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - very little substantial mainstream RS coverage that I could find. Bloomberg coverage is about future plans, Yahoo coverage is a Coindesk reprint - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll note that it's an interesting and controversial topic inside the crypto world, e.g. - so it's not impossible coverage could break out. But it really hasn't yet, and this would make it a WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just another coin in a sea of such coins, really nothing special, and given recent events, unlikely to catch on anytime soon. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject of the article does not seem to be notable enough, and its sources do not seem to be appropriate for encyclopedic standards. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete if, though very unlikely, more coverage shows up, it could be re-created. Simply has not received enough coverage. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the GNG at the moment. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  15:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.