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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Genesis Mining Ltd

Genesis Mining Ltd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

• please ignore the fact that it states 2nd nomination. The first one was by me just now, but encountered technical issues and was not completed satisfactorily so removed and resubmitted, resulting in the '2nd' tag being applied.

I may need some assistance in here - I cannot find some of the pages relevant to this discussion - the previous deletion discussion and the subsequent prevention of creation of an article under the normal title 'Genesis Mining' - I discovered this when trying to move the page to this and drop the 'Ltd' from the title. I cannot now find these pages. This page has been resurrected surreptitiously by a COI/SPA (with a total of 1 contribution) to sneakily bypass this deletion. The company does not have significant coverage - the only mentions in mainstream media, outside of the esoteric bitcoin discussion pages, centres around a headline-seeking PR stunt. I believe all the points raised in the initial AfD are still valid and this page should receive the same fate as its predecessor. I did try to CsD it but was told this wasn't the correct approach. Rayman60 ( talk) 02:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• I don't know if this helps you, but according to https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Genesis_Mining Genesis Mining was speedily deleted three times. It never went through a full AfD discussion. After the third deletion, that title was protected against further re-creation. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC) reply

yes, thanks. That was what I'd seen initially - I think by reading that log it justifies my reasoning that this new creation is nothing but subterfuge and warrants deletion. Plus all the usual wp:GNg reasons. Rayman60 ( talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I have fixed it and moved the AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as corporate spam; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as per K.e.coffman. I did find discussion of the company on a bitcoin forum where it was being discussed as a possible scam - "Scam alert : Do NOT INVEST in Genesis Mining". I don't like the fact that the Wikipedia article appears to give it an "authencity" it may not deserve. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:29, 19 January 2017 (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.