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 The arguments go back and forth but the deletion arguments based on lack of third party significant coverage are stronger policy based arguments than the keep arguments which fail to present such sources or argue sufficiently why they should confer notability. Polargeo (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin[edit]

Bitcoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable third-party coverage. Q T C 06:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a Google search came up with several third party commentaries and reviews of the project, but I'll admit that the quality of those sources may seem a bit lacking as they are mostly blog entries. That gets real fuzzy on what is a reliable source. Some of the sources may be considered "reliable" but that is a matter of opinion on the topic. I've also seen where some topics like this will get a commentary like "delete for now, but undelete or rewrite when reliable 3rd party sources are written". Yes, I get that too. Bleeding edge is a relative term anyway and this is all subjective. As per the strictly technical term of two or more 3rd party sources, that can indeed be found for this article. The rest is weighing if those sources are sufficient or merely the blogosphere talking to itself at the moment. They are, however, 3rd party commentaries that are not coming from the creator of the software and that indicates at least a certain level of notability. Now if that is sufficient for the current quality requirements of Wikipedia is where the question lies. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with all due respect, I do not think that's really relevant, as the fundamental problem is lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I can find no such coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to if at least one more credible source could be found.... that is debatable. I do think this does refute the original proposal for deletion that "no credible sources can be found", although I'll admit that just one source is quite weak. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • It was not meant as a threat at all, but rather a caution to those not familiar with WP procs. But I think the policy on canvassing is very important, because making a notification to an interested group of people who normally do not edit WP generally leads to a bit of a mess which usually has the unintended consequence of working against the goals of the interested group. And while I agree that true neutrality may not be achievable, it's still a worthy goal. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been established. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 02:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on that, please? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No -- I think it's evident that this article is backed by sources that show notability if you look at the References and External Links of this article. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 22:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I see there are references that establish nothing more than mere existence. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slashdot is user-powered. The article would not be accepted and voted up to front page status by the technical community if it were not notable - and it's still in beta! There's no reason whatsoever to suggest that it is not a notable project. All evidence points to the contrary. prat (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a ballot[edit]

Would be nice to know why this template above was added. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 22:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That template is often used when an article has been brought up off wiki in a forum or other internet watering hole of folks interested in the article. The purpose is to let folks not familiar with WP policy know what the relevant policies are, most importantly that an AFD discussion is not decided by raw voting--sometimes people new to WP assume that the number of !votes is important, when really it is both the number and the quality of the reasoning in line with WP policy. Let me know if that's not clear. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get why it's used. Just not why it's been used in this instance. If you could link me to perhaps where this has been linked externally, that would help to clear it up. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Their forums might be a good place to look first. Q T C 05:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DataWraith posted a link to the bitcoin forum thread about the deletion discussion here, claiming there were sources listed there. It all appears to be in good faith, however. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there also appear to be Single purpose accounts !votes who were likely directed here from the forum post. Q T C 14:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion discussion of this article also happened on Slashdot, although it should be noted that the AfD wasn't started until after the discussion died down there as well (just a few days later though). Still, I would contend that it was due to the attention from the Slashdot discussion that brought about this AfD by those both critical of Wikipedia and of a notion to delete the article. The article itself was linked directly on the main Slashdot post. If anything, the quality of the article has improved substantially since the increased attention. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

In line with the 'not a ballot' concept, here's a summary of the main points raised on either side of the debate.

Keep[edit]
Delete[edit]

.... I propose that based on the above we simply finish this debate - the article should be kept. Thanks to all comers. prat (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While these are good arguments, I should note that the Slashdot article itself was written by Bitcoins contributors and discussed on the Bitcoins forum. That independent editors need to review the article submission before it is posted on the front page is true and some sort of "fact checking" is done before that post happens, I wouldn't put Slashdot as the "gold standard" of technology coverage. I would put the ACM Journal or IEEE Spectrum as much more reliable sources of information for ground breaking computer technology, although information about open-source software applications are less likely to make it into those kind of journals for various reasons.
A cryptosystem such as Bitcoin's is less likely than other subjects to be published in conservative industry media such as the two journals you suggest. prat (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the 3rd party sources is certainly quite lacking and mostly blogs... and even that is mostly plagiarized from other blogs and sources. I would put the number of "quality" sources at best at just 3-4 sources, and even that is something subject to debate and sort of stretching the truth. The rest is either original research (pulling information directly out of the source code of the software) or using the primary sources of the creator of the software. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the number of good sources is limited, but would point out that even in the sources that can be characterized as good, most are passing mention, not significant coverage. The Maymin article is the best in terms of coverage, but the "views are his own" disclaimer suggests that it is considered more of an opinion or editorial piece than a regular news piece, and occurs in two local newspapers. I'd also point out that of the "keep" arguments:
  • The project can be verified to exist does not have anything to do with notability.
  • Notability has been established is still up for discussion.
If people still believe it's not notable, then please explain why? People are spending the time and money to build real world businesses on this system. prat (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Electronic cash systems are a perfectly valid topic and cross-references to existing implementations allow Wikipedia depth without extending the core article to undue length does not have anything to do with notability of this topic.
Incorrect. The author is saying that it is undesirable to bloat the Electronic cash systems article to include this much information on Bitcoin. The implication is that in discussing such systems, Bitcoin is a notable subject that cannot be excluded. prat (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least 18 independent third-party businesses accept bitcoins as payment does not have anything to do with notability, and the argument that Every single one should be considered notable third-party coverage does not conform WP:Notability.
If this becomes a deciding factor, then maybe we should change WP:Notability. prat (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regard to I think we should WP:Ignore all rules in this case. Why? Because Bitcoin is a unique innovation in that it's a) an electonic cryptocurrency b) anonymous/pseudonymous and c) fully distributed and doesn't need a central authority to function. Uniqueness, innovation, and other characteristics are not, as far as I know criteria for establishing nobility.
There's a reason why he said "ignore all rules", and it wasn't to explain the criteria for notability... Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 14:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please. I came here for information and was delighted to find it is not an argument establishing notability. Joy at finding information does not equate to significant coverage in reliable sources.
  • the quality of the article has improved substantially since the increased attention is, I hope, true, but does not have anything to do with notability.
In short, I still think we are falling short of notability in this case, despite the best efforts of a number of people. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the above argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT, no where has actual reliable, verifiable, and third-party sources been provided. Q T C 07:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second summary[edit]

Basically there are a small number of people saying the article should be deleted on the grounds that it's not notable enough. Then you have real Wikipedia users saying they want it kept. You have existing media coverage, in reasonable sources, which is amazing for a project at this stage of growth. You have businesses built on the thing. You have references from other Wikipedia articles such as Electronic money. Articles exist unchallenged for similar projects such as the Ripple monetary system. Cryptosystems are a subject where people seek approachable explanation, and Wikipedia's collaborative model can help to offer that. Even if the system was to disappear tomorrow, it is a part of our world, our cultural and economic history. It deserves description. This article should be kept. prat (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, a review of WP:N, WP:RS and WP:OTHERCRAP might be in order. I think this project might well become notable, but it's not there yet, as I do not see significant coverage in reliable srouces, from the point of view of WP's policies. But then, I'm imaginary, and not real. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not going to unlist this from AfD. Someone else has to. I originally started the article and have written a fair amount on it so I don't feel it's up to me, having people re-listing it for deletion even once I'd brought it back from the dead and arguing for it to be saved, to actually make the final decision. prat (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a great reason! Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 10:08, 30 July 2010 (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.
Category