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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Savings and Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Not notable beyond WP:SINGLEEVENT. Forum posts are not valid references. No confirmation of names used, and the last paragraph is a quote from a forum. Your Lord and Master (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If any verifiable sources can be found this should be a sub-entry of the larger Bitcoin article, as even larger bitcoin-related organizations don't get their own entries for lack of notability. 204.153.195.37 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'as even larger organizations...' is an invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF argument (not to mention that criteria for inclusion is WP:N, not 'larger'). Ipsign (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable at this point. If this hits criminal or civil courts, that matter might be notable, but right now this is just static. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It was never known about outside bitcoin-related forums and IRC prior to the default and only picked up by minor news sites after; not only that, nearly half those are dedicated bitcoin news sites with questionable reliability. Not notable. 75.139.178.208 (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He still is trying to pay everyone back, no one knows for sure if he even is a scammer yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cregq (talk • contribs) 01:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have a source on that? 75.139.178.208 (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous users' comments. There isn't enough coverage at the moment to meet the requirements of the GNG or WP:CORP.
• Delete I am a big fan of Bitcoin, and maybe this article will deserve to reappear at some point in the future once we know how the story ends, but the article as currently presented unfortunately does not pass muster and also makes an unsubstantiated allegation of crime against a named living person which falls well short of the criteria outlined in WP:BLP. Casascius♠ (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild Keep This was one of, if not the, single largest savings exchange in the history of the Bitcoin crypto-currency and it just defaulted, wiping out a significant chunk of the entire Bitcoin economy. Believe me when I say people outside of the Bitcoins-related forums and chatrooms know about it (I wouldn't be remotely aware of it if that were the case). It is also well sourced for a stub article. The fact that "we don't know how the story ends" really doesn't diminish the significance right now. Enough has already happened to make it worthy of an article in my opinion. Since events are actively happening, if anything that's a good reason to delay deletion. Beansy (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Original nomination and reference to WP:SINGLEEVENT is not valid. Even if applying WP:SINGLEEVENT to organizations (while it is intended for people), the whole point in WP:SINGLEEVENT is not about deleting information, it is about avoiding two articles covering essentially the same thing. Quote from WP:SINGLEEVENT: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." Therefore (and as there is no other article covering event), the most which can be argued is renaming the article into description of the event (no idea how to name it, but this beyond the point; in any case renaming can and should be done outside of AfD). As for WP:GNG line of arguments - three four references currently provided IMNSHO do qualify as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required by WP:GNG (coverage is not trivial, sources are reliable, independent, etc.). Ipsign (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - current state of the article doesn't show it to be more than a footnote on Bitcoin itself. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The rule about people notable for a single event applies to people. The deletion criterion given does not apply. However, this is not sufficiently important for a separate article, and should be merged into Bitcoin. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 13 September 2012 (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.