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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BitConnect[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources are non-independent sources or press releases that do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 05:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this related article created by the same group of socks:

If the company is not notable, then it is likely that neither is the currency. SmartSE (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bitcoin companies tend to have walled garden like references, sourced primarily to a few minor trade publications that republish their press releases. I don't see anything here that's better - the usual mentions in passing plus press releases and their reprints. WP:CORPSPAM. PS. Creator got blocked for socking, like serious paid-for spammer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the 10th biggest cryptocurrency on the market: https://coinmarketcap.com It isn't some unknown and obscure startup. If this cryptocurrency warrants deletion then so does every other cryptocurrency, especially the lower market cap ones. The better option is to clean it up instead of making it disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.125.247 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This coin is now the 8th biggest by marketcap https://coincheckup.com Additionally it appears on the List of cryptocurrencies meaning that it is relevant enough to be included. There are over 1000 cryptocurrencies on the market. It seems improper to remove the 8th biggest one. Also, after some looking through, it seems very odd and suspect that a call for deletion of this article happened about 2 days following the inclusion of the 1st sentence "BitConnect is a high-yield investment program, which is a type of ponzi scheme". Administrators should be vigilant of someone trying to bury the exposure of this article. The timing of the call for deletion doesn't seem like a coincidence. — 2604:2000:69D4:AE00:FDB7:141A:F152:6B96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:37-14:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Delete. User Piotrus summed it up very well: press coverage reprinting press releases is not notability, and a determined sock army trying to keep it afloat under a variety of page names* doesn't change that. – Athaenara ✉ 05:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(* including BitConnect Coin, Draft:BitConnect Coin, BitConnect, Bitconnect coin, perhaps others. – Athaenara ✉ 05:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC) )[reply]

Keep Lots of cryptocurrencies that appear on wikipedia are smaller and less known than this one and also suffer from a similar minimal amount of press coverage because of the niche nature of this subject. No other cryptocurrency page is being called for deletion for some reason, but this one has been. I also checked the above user's claim and it does seem that the timing of this flag for deletion came right after the 1st sentence was included, which makes it suspect. A better option, in my opinion, is to fix this page up and include citations that the community deems well-known enough. As has been previously said, this particular cryptocurrency appears in the top 10 according to marketcap and thus targeting this crypto and not any other one whose marketcaps are smaller and also have a minimal amount of press coverage seems unfair and biased. Let's fix this page up instead of making it disappear all together. Lastly, Bitconnect coin is also the same company and so merging these two articles may seem more appropriate. - Maximus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.245.160.163 (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:13, 24 October 2017 (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.