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 redirect to Bitcoin Cash. Most of the arguments to keep this have no basis in policy. Notability is not inherited from notable creators; no current guideline establishes notability based on cryptocurrency market share; establishing that this is distinct from Bitcoin Cash is necessary but not sufficient to establishing notability (I'm pretty sure I'm a distinct individual from Jimbo Wales, and yet he is notable, I am not); and notability is based on substantive coverage, not solely on the existence of reliable sources. I am not going to protect the redirect preemptively, but I would be open to doing so if editors ignore the consensus reached here. Vanamonde ( talk) 10:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Bitcoin SV

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Bitcoin SV (  | 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 Retimuko ( talk) 00:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, redirect to Bitcoin Cash - at present it's an event in the history of Bitcoin Cash, there's a story to tell here that actually got a little mainstream coverage ... but it's a WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard ( talk) 11:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 11:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect per David. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 12:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep While Bitcoin SV is an event in the history of Bitcoin Cash, it's also true that Bitcoin SV is a separate coin to Bitcoin Cash. Therefore it should have its own article. Just as there is a Wikipedia article for animal, there are also Wikipedia articles for cat and dog. Likewise, there is an article for cryptocurrency, and also articles for Bitcoin, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. As for coverage of the subject, there are plenty of articles about Bitcoin SV and the Bitcoin Cash fork generally. While the coverage may not be extensive in the Wall Street Journal, it is extensive in web pages devoted to cryptocurrencies. This is a similar situation to many niche subjects covered on Wikipedia. Chrisclear ( talk) 06:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Not a policy-based reason, but an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. First thing you'll need, in any case, are references in Reliable Sourced - meaning mainstream coverage, not crypto blogs - David Gerard ( talk) 09:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There are no reliable sources, just cryptocurrency-specific blog coverage. This is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG. BenKuykendall ( talk) 17:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Bitcoin Cash; insufficient coverage of this as a separate topic. The redirect will likely need to be full-protected per crypto Discretionary Sanctions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect Bitcoin SV just passed Bitcoin Cash in market cap, although I'm not sure if this is just a transient thing or not. I think what happened here is WP:TOOSOON. In the meantime it's notable enough for its own section in Bitcoin Cash. — Kjerish ( talk) 00:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Bitcoin Cash per others above. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 16:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  It probably will be notable later, but WP:TOOSOON at the present based on sources available. Crypto-currency blogs DO NOT contribute to notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)}_{( click me!)} 12:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Bitcoin SV has emerged out of Bitcoin Cash but it follows a fundamentally different road map and culture. Whereas Bitcoin Cash wants to enhance the protocol with many more new features Bitcoin SV wants to go back to the roots and even sunsetting some added technology (e.g. P2SH). In addition, where Bitcoin Cash wants to be a coin for anarchists and libertarians, Bitcoin SV wants to fit within the existing law of country states and in doing so become attractive to businesses. Bitcoin SV has a completely separate ecosystem from including its own consensus rules, block explorers, wallets, ticker on respectable and established exchanges and 3rd party services working exclusively with BSV. Having Bitcoin SV as a subsection of Bitcoin Cash will cause the page to be pulled in two directions which are not compatible with each other. Bitcoin SV has been documented in various online sites which might not have a printed format but have existed for multiple years and are respectable sources. Today Bitcoin SV has also been able to surpass the value of Bitcoin Cash for multiple hours and is currently only ~3 USD below Bitcoin Cash. torusJKL ( talk) 20:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • So if any of that can be shown, it needs to be shown in reliable sources - not crypto blogs. If you have any, please add them to the article - David Gerard ( talk) 22:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The article includes now the Bloomberg article Bitcoin Cash Wars End With No Relief for Biggest Cryptocurrency as a source. torusJKL ( talk) 19:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Bitcoin SV is notable. It is backed by two notable individuals: Craig Steven Wright and Calvin Ayre. It has been mentioned in traditional media outlets like CNBC. The particular block where the fork occurred can be cited from any block explorer. In addition, some commentators have pointed out that the creation of Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin ABC coincided with the beginning of Bitcoin's November plunge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlysle ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Do you have any reliable sources about Bitcoin SV? This is a simple question, but a key one - at present, the article has literally no reliable sources edit: sorry! one RS - David Gerard ( talk) 11:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • This is not what " notable" means in this context. First, since notability is not inherited, the notable investors are irrelevant. Further, a block explorer is a primary source and not suitable to show notability. Similarly, the speculation about the November plunge is original research and not appropriate for the article. Coverage on CNBC is potentially relevant though; can you give us a link to the article? BenKuykendall ( talk) 18:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I was able to find two CNBC articles that mention Bitcoin SV as a product of the split. Battered-down bitcoin jumps 15%, lifting cryptocurrency market value by $20 billion and Bitcoin crashes 37 percent in November, wiping $70 billion off of cryptocurrencies' market value torusJKL ( talk) 19:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • To me, these sources, though mentioning Bitcoin SV, are not significant coverage. The articles primarily cover Bitcoin and Bitcoin cash; the mention of Bitcoin SV is just one sentence in each article. Though they provide important information and should be cited in Bitcoin_Cash#November_2018_split, I think that they alone do not justify an article on Bitcoin SV. BenKuykendall ( talk) 01:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Significant coverage: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Do people even look for sources, this is a pretty obvious keep to me. - War wizard90 ( talk) 01:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
      • None of these are independent reliable sources. Retimuko ( talk) 03:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Crypto blogs aren't accepted as reliable sources nor evidence of notability, and several of those are pay-to-play outlets - David Gerard ( talk) 13:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep I should say that I think Wikipedia needs to update its standards, policies, and overall understanding of cryptocurrencies because most people saying to delete this article clearly have very little knowledge about the topic. There should be a notability standard that any cryptocurrency listed in the top 25 of market capitalization should automatically qualify for notability standards. Deleting this article would only be proof of how little Wikipedia users understand the crypto space, not serve to enhance the quality of Wikipedia. We shouldn't redirect to Bitcoin Cash, this isn't bitcoin cash, it's been forked, it's completely different, and it has a shit ton of money dumped into it in order to reach such a high market cap. There are about 23 million hits on a google search, not notable? Give me a break, this discussion is a joke. - War wizard90 ( talk) 01:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The general notability guideline provides the criteria for the notability of cryptocurrencies. This guideline, however, does not rely on market cap. Market cap may be a measure of economic importance, but it is not a good standard of inclusion in an encyclopedia. BenKuykendall ( talk) 03:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • An additional source (Fortune.com) covering the fact that BSV had overtaken BCH in market cap on 7th December ^[1] has been added to the article. torusJKL ( talk) 00:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

    Gal Buki, Which is essentially one and a half paragraphs in an article about something else. Not significant coverage. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)}_{( click me!)} 12:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect for now. Would like to see more coverage that focuses Bitcoin SV that's not about the recent fork. The Fortune article is titled "Bitcoin Is Tumbling Yet Again: Most Other Cryptocurrencies Are Following—But Not All". Yea it briefly passed Bitcoin Cash in marketcap but just that doesn't make it notable, though it may be worth noting at the Bitcoin Cash article. Morgan Ginsberg ( talk) 07:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep There is currently just one unreliable source in the article. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 07:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  Ladislav Mecir, The problem isn't the reliability of the sources, it is due to the lack of significant coverage. None of the sources in the article are directly about BitcoinSV, it is just a paragraph or two in the overall story of the bitcoin cash wars. That fails WP:SIGCOV and these sources do not contribute to making the topic notable. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)}_{( click me!)} 14:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Re "None of the sources in the article are directly about BitcoinSV" - no, Insertcleverphrasehere, that is not true. The source ^[1] contains much more than one paragraph about Bitcoin SV. Actually, over the 50% of the article text is related to Bitcoin SV. The second source ^[2] superficially contains about two sections discussing Bitcoin SV, but other sections discuss what the forks are, which, as the article explains, is what Bitcoin SV is in relation to bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash. The third cited article, ^[3] also discusses Bitcoin SV in about 50% of its text. The same holds also for the article. ^[4] Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 15:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Ladislav Mecir, The first one looks like it might be acceptable, though it doesn't mention Bitcoin SV by name, from what I can tell this is what it is referring to. The second source is not significant coverage. Both 3 and 4 are primarily about Bitcoin Cash, with short sections about SV (it doesn't look like 50% to me). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)}_{( click me!)} 18:20, 17 December 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.