Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoinJoin

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CoinJoin

[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 - two RSes (Wired, one event in Yahoo!), two other third-party sources that aren't accepted as evidence of notability (Coindesk), the rest is entirely primary. Has apparently been this way for years now - hasn't improved in that time. WP:BEFORE shows negligible coverage outside bitcoin blogs, many of which are pay-for-play outlets. Would be a WP:TOOSOON except it's been around for years like this David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real reliable sources. The Yahoo Finance article is just a CCN (cryptocurrency press) article with no reliability. Wired! articles are generally reliable but this one is just a crystal ball of what they think might happen - just speculation, not news. CoinJoin, like a lot of cryptocurrency companies - was believed to have a future, but it didn't. Much of the rest of the cryptopress sources are actually negative - why it's going to fail, or why it became defunct. A never was company, just hype. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CoinJoin isn't a company - it's a method or technique for anonymizing cryptocurrency transactions. Caseeno (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the page has been on Wikipedia for three years. Coinjoin is a well established method for anonymizing transactions, not just on Bitcoin but on other cryptocurrencies too. There has been a reasonable amount of coverage to demonstrate notability. Yahoo Finance is considered reliable. It's also covered here in MIT Technology Review https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608716/bitcoin-transactions-arent-as-anonymous-as-everyone-hoped/ . I vote to keep the article so it can be improved over time. Deleting should only be used as a last resort when there is no other alternative. There are other options here. Caseeno (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caseeno (talk · contribs) - please sign your !vote
Please don't remove the deletion notice on the article
Yahoo Finance just reprinted the CCN article, they didn't write it.
So the MIT Technology Review, 14 months ago, says the technique does not work. Why does this indicate notability? We can't cover every technology flop - there are billions of them!
I'll note that you're a newbie here (1 week!), so might be excused for not knowing our rules. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The MIT piece doesn't say CoinJoin doesn't work. It just describes a limitation with respect to multiple CoinJoins from the same wallet. In any case, I don't think success or failure is what determines notability. There are plenty of online articles that discuss CoinJoin in some detail, for example this academic review is quite detailed: https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article/3/2/127/4057584 Caseeno (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a bad article for years is a reason to delete, not keep - it's evidence it lacks the capacity to improve, and that just keeping it won't do anything - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It could be worth a mention in the Bitcoin article. Sources are insufficient for a standalone article just about this one technology. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO fail. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as not notable for stand alone article, per WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2018 (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.