If you post in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin please don't say "yeah, but bitcoin is really important and special so the rules shouldn't apply" or argue that the rule is dumb or unfair. That only makes it worse. Try to address how the rule is satisfied.
[... ] I hope it doesn't get deleted. If it does, it'll be hard to overcome the presumption.
Institutional momentum is to stick with the last decision. (edit: or at least I assume so, that's how the world usually works, but maybe Wiki is different)
Satoshi, please don’t be sad. 😿
The
Wikipedia article on “Bitcoin”
was deleted 30 July 2010, on grounds that Bitcoin was allegedly
not “notable”. The article was later undeleted on 12 December 2010.
Since then, your little invention has been taking over the world. It has become so
notable, so “important and special”, that those who feel threatened by its freedom needed to invent the POS meta-scam—and a massive lie-propaganda campaign to go with it.
It is true that institutional momentum is to stick with the last decision—or to repeat history in some fashion. Wiki is no different. If I may be so bold as to scandalize some of my friends by quoting a Communist:
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
The deletion of the “Bitcoin” article was tragedy. This is farce:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Stop_accepting_cryptocurrency_donations (Concluded 12 April 2022.)