Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin XT

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 List of bitcoin forks. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin XT (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)

Gmaxwell sums it up at Talk:Bitcoin XT. "Bitcoin XT stopped being Bitcoin software over two years ago and it was abandoned over a year ago. It hasn't seen a single update in a few days shy of a year now. The article contains many outdated and simply incorrect claims and it isn't likely to be corrected or maintained because the article is about a long defunct obscure piece of software. Is there any good reason to not delete the article?" So this is merely a historical relic, it could be a footnote in Bitcoin. Ysangkok (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Additional time has only further supported the view I gave on the talk page. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Being a long defunct obscure piece of software is not a valid reason for deletion (per WP:DEL-REASON). However, merging or redirecting to another article may be a viable fate for such kind of articles about subjects of limited notability. Pavlor (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor:, the subject was never really covered in mainstream media. The Wired article mentions it as an example of open-source, but the article is not really about XT, it is about the social dynamics. So it fails Wikipedia:GNG, being only covered in isolated cases. It should be covered in Bitcoin, it is a historical side note, and only notable in the larger context of scaling debates. It fails "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable general interest, independent secondary sources;", since there are only articles in niche media like Wired. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoinj, a similar article. Its result was merge. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is a also a similar discussion to delete Bitcoin Core and merge it into Bitcoin. Is this to delete all evidence of a non-core history? At wikipedia we keep based upon WP:GNG, not if the software is actually used anymore or not. This article like Bitcoin Core, both meet GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was asked to comment on this AfD.[1] I do not believe that this was canvassing, because I am known to be neutral on those aspects of bitcoin that generate so much heat; my interest is in the mathematical details of the cryptography and the engineering details of the mining hardware. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: The reasons given for deletion reasons to improve the article, are valid reasons to delete a Wikipedia article. The article is clearly notable (covered in depth by The Guardian, The New Yorker, Extreme Tech, PC World, WIRED, and CNBC). --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral based on comment by Gmaxwell below. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe you're correct. Take a step through those sources. E.g. The Guardian, literally all it says about XT is that in override's Bitcoin's blocksize rule: the article isn't about Bitcoin XT, it's about the bitcoin blocksize drama. Same for Extreme Tech and others-- go look at the titles, every one is about that. By the time XT was abandoned it wasn't even software for Bitcoin but for another cryptocurrency. None of these articles actually talk about XT itself, e.g. they don't cover the severe vulnerabilities it had at various points, the fake nodes used to promote it, or the anti-privacy "features" like the TOR blacklisting and centralized phone home. Nor do they cover its positive features either such as acting as a server for Hearn's "kickstarter" service. They don't cover that it later came out its author was employed by a Bitcoin competitor (R3) during the time he was running XT without disclosing the conflict of interests, or any of the other reasons it failed. They don't cover its disagreements with the cryptocurrency it switched to after it failed on bitcoin nor its failures there. E.g. They don't cover much that wasn't in the paid wire service announcement of it in the first place. They're not actually about XT, they're thin articles about a specific controversy which just mention XT as a participant in that controversy. And as a result the article pretty much doesn't either. There isn't a lot of avenue to improve the article because there are few/no non-primary sources for anything about the subject itself which aren't actually articles about a specific controversy that just happen to mention it and because it was a failed attempt has since been abandoned. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Additionally, I'm puzzled by the inconsistency with your comments on the Bitcoin Core AFD. Here you report Strong Keep, but there you are Merge or Delete. I agree that article should be deleted too, yet it has *significantly* more coverage which is unrelated to a single event (including academic work as well as popular press), plus orders of magnitude more use now and in the past. That seems really inconsistent to me. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my !vote to neutral, based upon your comments. Bitcoin XT is mentioned in those sources, but I need to evaluate your claim that Bitcoin XT is only mentioned in passing. Regarding Bitcoin Core I still don't see any evidence that it should be treated as anything other than a version of Bitcoin. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I think the viewpoints of everyone are valid. Although this may be encyclopedic, it doesn't really deserve an article b/c of it being defunct and being around for only small period time. This is a piece of history, so I think we should merge this into Bitcoin as it is apart of its history. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge @Pavlor: said what I wanted to said, norm is not a good reason, but I think the subject itself fails GNG. Consider merging with Bitcoin rather than keeping a separate article. I like to say the current content Bitcoin XT is helpful. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 22:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge with Bitcoin. The Bitcoin article was marked as too long and split to subpages such as History of bitcoin, Economics of bitcoin, etc. After those splits, the prose size of the Bitcoin article is 48,273 characters at present. Seeing proposals to merge several articles into it including this one, I am afraid that the prose would become unreadable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idea -- We could merge this with List of bitcoin forks OR put an summary of this product on that page. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of bitcoin forks. I think that's a reasonable compromise. I think it warrants mention somewhere, but the sourcing isn't up to par enough to warrant an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of bitcoin forks. While it does not seem to deserve an article of its own, it should have coverage somewhere. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of bitcoin forks. reading through the arguments listed above I think this is a workable solution. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:04, 14 July 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.