Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinity Exchanger

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Exchanger

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This crypto exchange does not appear to meet WP:GNG. My search does not turn up any coverage in reliable sources, only mentions in crypto forums and blogs. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Websites. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items [1]... And putting in the article that you don't do "know your customer" analysis, nor money laundering tracking is pretty much admitting you're an illegal financial operation, just an fyi. That's not really helping notability, and admitting to illegal activities on the open web might not be the best business decision. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t true. Given that it operates solely on Tor, we cannot definitively say if they are functioning in a country that violates any laws, so claiming money laundering and similar accusations isn’t really valid. If that were the case, decentralized exchanges and privacy coins shouldn’t be listed here either. Additionally, they could be aligned with a BRICS-type framework. KYC (Know Your Customer) is very much a standard used by Western banks and international banks, but not all banks follow these rules.

If we remove this article, then what’s next? Are we going to start asking to remove offshore companies that happen to be shells from history? Removing this article would be like arguing with history. It’s a site that has been up for a long time and documents a significant period in cryptocurrency history and its evolution. Darkwebhistory (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't meet notability requirements, regardless. We have no sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep vote so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate. It would be great to get more participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b and nom. Andre🚐 05:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure this has any chance of passing WP:V, let alone WP:N. I'm sure it exists, but not as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Delete. (As far as I can tell, that press release is for another organisation. I really can't find any RS that mentions it at all) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 12 October 2024 (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.