Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cryptocurrency

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Cryptocurrency. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Cryptocurrency|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Cryptocurrency. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cryptocurrency/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Cryptocurrency

Patrick Hillmann

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

He's held notable leadership roles, but there is little to no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most coverage consists of routine announcements or PR pieces lacking the depth required to establish notability per WP:BIO. No evidence of substantial recognition/awards or major lasting impact that would merit a standalone article Mooonswimmer 18:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Law, Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‘’‘Keep’’’ – The subject clearly meets the criteria for inclusion under WP:BIO and WP:GNG, with multiple independent, reliable sources covering his work in substantive detail over a sustained period. The argument that coverage is limited to “routine announcements” does not hold up under review of available sourcing.

1. Substantive Coverage in National and International Media

Patrick Hillmann has received significant, non-routine coverage in numerous independent, reliable sources, particularly in relation to his role in one of the most consequential regulatory enforcement actions in the history of the cryptocurrency industry.

‘’‘The New York Times’’’ covered the U.S. Department of Justice’s $4.3 billion settlement with Binance and referenced Hillmann’s role as part of the executive leadership navigating the crisis: [1]

‘’‘CNBC’’’ aired multiple interviews with Hillmann during regulatory investigations: [2]

‘’‘Reuters’’’ and ‘’‘The Wall Street Journal’’’ covered Binance’s billion-dollar liquidity events and quoted the exchange’s communications posture—spearheaded by Hillmann: [3] [4]

These are not “routine” press releases but mainstream coverage identifying Hillmann as a key figure in the management of major financial and regulatory crises. This meets the WP:GNG requirement for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.

2. Demonstrable Policy-Relevant and Institutional Impact

Hillmann personally authored Binance’s formal response to a bipartisan U.S. Senate inquiry led by Senators Elizabeth Warren, Chris Van Hollen, and Roger Marshall—an event covered in:

‘’‘CoinDesk’’’: [5]

‘’‘Blockworks’’’: [6]

This led to direct public criticism from Senator Warren—coverage that appeared in national press. Several months later, the DOJ settlement publicly affirmed many of the claims made in Hillmann’s letter, including the absence of user fund commingling and acknowledgement of compliance improvements. This level of influence on U.S. policymaker engagement satisfies WP:BIO#1, which includes having “a significant impact in their professional field.”

3. Executive Leadership in a Notable Institution

Hillmann served as Binance’s Chief Communications Officer and then Chief Strategy Officer during one of the most closely watched periods in the company’s history. Binance is the largest crypto exchange in the world by trading volume.

He held executive responsibility during:

- The collapse of FTX and Three Arrows Capital

- Regulatory investigations by the SEC, CFTC, and DOJ

- The $4.3 billion DOJ settlement—one of the largest corporate resolutions in U.S. history

Hillmann was the public voice for Binance through these events, featured prominently in dozens of interviews, op-eds, and public statements. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, individuals who play executive roles in organizations that are “the subject of multiple independent, in-depth articles” clearly qualify.

4. Longevity, Breadth of Coverage, and Source Variety

Hillmann has appeared in a wide range of independent, non-trivial sources over the course of more than a decade:

‘’‘NBC News’’’ covered an AI-generated deepfake scam that impersonated Hillmann as part of an international fraud scheme: [7]

‘’‘O’Dwyer’s PR’’’ has documented multiple career moves across leading firms including Edelman, GE, and the National Association of Manufacturers: [8]

‘’‘Politico’’’ and ‘’‘The Hill’’’ have featured his thought leadership and professional milestones: [9]

This satisfies WP:SIGCOV, which requires significant coverage—not mere mention—in reliable sources.

5. Precedent for Inclusion

There are numerous crypto executives with significantly less mainstream visibility who currently have articles on English Wikipedia. These include:

‘’’Florian Reike’’’: A co-founder of nakamo.to and blockchain consultant. His profile is primarily niche and has little to no major media coverage. ([10])

‘’’Antoni Trenchev’’’: Co-founder of Nexo and former Bulgarian MP. While notable in crypto finance, his media exposure is largely regional.([11])

‘’’Jason Fernandes’’’: A Web3 entrepreneur with limited citation in English-language press. His article mostly cites self-published or regional sources. ([12])

‘’’Emin Gün Sirer’’’: An academic and founder of Avalanche blockchain. While respected in crypto development circles, his public role is largely technical and academic. ([13])

‘’’Adam Back’’’: A cryptographer known for Hashcash. Though influential in the early crypto community, his public visibility is limited outside technical audiences. ([14])

Each of the above has less mainstream regulatory coverage, public controversy, or executive visibility than Hillmann, yet their articles are retained under WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

Therefore I'd argue he clearly meets and exceeds the notability threshold under WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:CORPDEPTH. Otherwise, the bar here is being set abnormally high, particularly while the subject seems to still be very active and influential. 24.234.111.50 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Center

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

Article lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations, Companies, Technology, and New York. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nous Research

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

non-notable company that apparently has a lot of money. everything is interviews or press releases. maybe too soon, maybe just never notable. but either way, it's not notable as it stands. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator); company has significant coverage in several articles in VentureBeat (WP:VENTUREBEAT) and Fortune, and therefore has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The articles in VentureBeat particularly are far more than just press releases. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Venture Crypto is questionable at best but it's basically just a rehashed interview. Fortune is also pretty terrible for the same reasons and it's just a press release without saying as much. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that in reverse, Fortune is the interview, Venture Crypto is basically a PR/interview rehashed. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VENTUREBEAT is listed as reliable at WP:RSP without exceptions. Has there been some discussion that they are unreliable on crypto news? The articles themselves are in-depth and technical, far more than just rehashed press releases. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, Technology, and Computing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a propaganda piece for a company with no notable achievement that lives of social media hype. Their biggest achievement is a fine-tune of openweight models (Hermes) that barely improves the benchmark scores and has no community relevance outside of their social media circles. Sumosacerdote (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Pompliano

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

This new promotional draft consists entirely of routine business news and personal interviews. The NY Post and TechCrunch links are obviously interviews, both saying in their voices what the subject wants them to say about him. The Forbes.sites source is a blog, the Bloomberg source is entirely about routine funding, and the WSJ article is about a complaint the subject made about a former employer eight years ago. None of these seem to meet what I would normally consider direct detailing of a biographical subject from reliable independent sources. The page creator has lately arrived on Wikipedia and each of their page creations seem to be badly sourced drafts about crypto subjects. I am sometimes wrong, but this set of edits looks much like undeclared paid editing to this reviewer. I was inclined to tag as A7, but IMHO the big name sources WSJ and Bloomberg deserve a fuller discussion (though neither detail). I can't determine from found or applied sources how this particular subject is more noteworthy than any of the tens of thousands of other aspiring crypto-entrepreneurs out there. BusterD (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Cryptocurrency. BusterD (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The Wall Street Journal is more about the firing than about the person, it doesn't seem promotional. Blomberg is about an IPO, but the source is solid. Forbes seems ok, along with the rest, I suppose we have enough to pass the notability bar. I don't see a strong pass, but it's there. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am the reviewer for this AfC submission. While reviewing, I mulled over the same criteras as per the nom. but as per AfC reviewing instructions and scope, I decided to accept the article based on the facts that (a) Bloomberg article met the criteria of a reliable, independent source and has more than passing mention. It identifies his expertise and verifies the information contained in the article. (b) TechCrunch, while an interview, captures some notability, (c) he is regularly present on Fox Business/CNBC (cosidered reliable) news segments as an expert on Crypto topics, (d) and upon further search, sources may exist such as Coindesk (ack. WP:RS). — WeWake (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Further sources: (a) He was the judge for "Forbes Cryptocurrency Awards 2020", (b) Business Insider coverage of his Bitcoin Investor Week conference, (c) and sustained coverage as a founder and cryptocurrency expert/investor in Reuters (1 2), misc. finance news 3, for example. — WeWake (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is poorly developed, and the subject is not well known, except for his attempt to destroy Snapchat. Kailash29792 (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:I appreciate the feedback so far and the opportunity to respond. I’d like to begin by clarifying that I am not involved in any form of paid editing or promotional activity. I’m an independent editor based in Africa. The subject of the article is completely unaware of my existence, as I came across the profile while researching a cryptocurrency topic and was surprised to find no Wikipedia entry despite various respected sources and a Google knowledge panel. That was what first inspired me to draft the article.

I’m still fairly new to creating Wikipedia pages, and this submission was part of a learning process (learning how to contribute to global knowledge beyond optimization). Because crypto is my area of expertise, I naturally gravitated toward that subject when experimenting. Admittedly, my early drafts may have shown inexperience, but each iteration has been an attempt to align better with Wikipedia’s standards, particularly in sourcing, neutrality, and notability.

Based on past feedback, I made a conscious decision to avoid citing crypto-only sources, even when more abundant, and instead prioritized mainstream, non-crypto-specific outlets such as Bloomberg, WSJ, TechCrunch, and Forbes.

As one of the reviewing editors correctly observed, the Bloomberg article is a strong indicator of notability. It goes beyond a passing mention by discussing the subject’s role in a public company IPO, referencing his expertise and leadership within the field. This is consistent with WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, which recognize reliable business coverage as a valid measure of notability when it provides meaningful, independent context.

The WSJ article, while about a workplace dispute, nonetheless documents a verifiable part of the subject’s professional history and is neither trivial nor promotional. As noted by Oaktree b, its reliability as a source alone justifies inclusion and is not grounds for deletion under A7.

While TechCrunch and Forbes contain elements of direct commentary or interviews, they still reflect the subject’s relevance within their professional sphere, particularly within the tech startup and crypto ecosystem. Interview formats do not disqualify sources from notability considerations when they are not promotional and are hosted by reliable, editorially controlled platforms, as is the case here.

Another editor also rightly noted that the subject has appeared on Fox Business and CNBC as a crypto analyst. These are mainstream financial media outlets with editorial standards, and such appearances are a strong indicator of professional recognition, even if individual transcripts weren't included in the current draft.

I also made an effort to include critical coverage, specifically citing the WSJ article that referenced a firing, to avoid creating a flattering narrative. That should demonstrate a commitment to neutrality and to presenting a complete, balanced view, not promotion.

If there are remaining concerns about tone or structure, I fully welcome constructive suggestions on how to improve the article, not simply remove it.

My goal is to contribute to global knowledge from my small corner of the world and to improve Wikipedia by participating in good faith. Dismissing this effort as “routine news” or “promotion” without offering improvement guidance risks discouraging new editors who are genuinely trying to engage with the platform.

I believe the subject meets the notability criteria, as supported by multiple independent, reliable sources that give more than passing mentions. If aspects of the article need refinement, I’m happy to revise. But I respectfully disagree that deletion or A7 tagging is the right course of action.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion, positively or critically. I am here to learn, improve, and contribute constructively to the platform and its mission. Olaseni Kehinde Precious 1 (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]