Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin faucet

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 merge to History of bitcoin. T. Canens (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin faucet (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)

notability per WP:GNG not established, only covered as novelty in reputable media Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non notable neologism. Crypto currency articles tend to be awkward little critters of adverts and spam Fiddle Faddle 17:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the WaPo link is a bad source, since it is actually a blog, and not covered by the journalistic standards of printed WaPo articles. ---Ysangkok (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the GavinTech blog is a bad source, because it is authored by Gavin Andresen, which was running a bitcoin faucet himself. So it is primary. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure - a couple of passing Bloomberg mentions [1][2] are all I can find in the mainstream press. But it has some coverage in academic papers, some of which aren't trash, and in Digital Gold by Nathaniel Popper. It's pretty minor, but it's an interesting historical thing. I'm not sure it warrants a standalone article. Perhaps a mention in History of bitcoin - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These are notable part of early bitcoin history and the sources are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. There are also other mentions in media, interviews, etc when people got bitcoin from Gavin's faucet, etc. Here Wired talks about Gavin Andresen's early bitcoin faucet. There were others as well. Plenty notable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: the Wired piece just mentions the faucet in passing, with a single sentence, with no actual details about it. There is nothing to cite from that article, except the fact that it existed. It's not sufficient for an article. It does not become notable history just become you claim it is. Other sources do not exist just because you claim they do. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources in Google Books. So many hits in google news it would be tedious to search through them all. Did you do any search prior to nomination? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf, How about you add them and then suggest the discussion be reconsidered? That tends to be much more productive than this. Perhaps you've done so already. Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, i havent yet and I am going to sleep. Maybe tomorrow. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found some reliable sources which talk about the concept: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two are crypto sites. The third appears to be a blog. The fourth is a passing mention (p10). The fifth is pretty good actually, if short. The sixth and seventh are self-published books. The eighth is a self-published book that imitates the style of the For Dummies books. This suggests that your judgement on what's a reliable source could do with some work - but the Springer book source is probably usable - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: did you actually buy the Springer book? It costs a hundred bucks for me. I wonder if somebody could access it for free from university. I doubt it would cover faucets more than in passing. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Superastig: like David mentions, all those sources are unreliable, except maybe Springer. But the Springer source doesn't actually seem to mention faucets, so why did you link it? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got a look at someone else's copy. The text actually has a several-paragraph section about bitcoin faucets and describing their security implications. It looked a good source to me. Still not convinced it's enough to stand up a standalone article, but if it gets merged somewhere that source would be fine wherever it ends up - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to History of bitcoin. Since it doesn't seem notable enough for a stand alone article, but still has significance as a subject in relation to bitcoin. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to History of bitcoin. Not everything about bitcoin is notable on its own. Wm335td (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2020 (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.