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 merge to Bitcoin. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Namecoin[edit]

Namecoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unencyclopedic, notability not established. The best I can say is that this is a technology based on Bitcoin, which in and of itself does not confer notability. I removed most of the bare URL sources in the article, because they don't talk about the article topic at all, and most of the ELs violated the EL policy. Additional: I discovered that this was previously deleted and recreated, and I don't see any substantial changes to the quality of the article (solely based on the first AfD's arguments). MSJapan (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I was only able to find trivial mention in four newspaper articles, and all in the context of Bitcoin. The content could be merged with Bitcoin. - MrX 01:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and merge to Bitcoin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such thing as delete and merge. Merger is a variant of keeping, and involves not pressing the delete button. Deletion or merger. If you want to help the closing administrator decide whether to hit the delete button or not, you must pick one. Uncle G (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage at (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), at the very least, please merge and redirect to Bitcoin, and in that latter case there is then no need for deletion of the page history. Thanks! — Cirt (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep probably the most talked about DNS alternative technology. It might be a little awkward to shuffle into another article so it seems like it'll be best left alone in this article. --JBrown23 (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. JohnNBurke (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • The most talked about? Sources, please? Nageh (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; the very few sources (reliable or not) that even mention the subject does so in the context of Bitcoin, not as its own subject. If a mention of this does belong in the Bitcoin article, a single sentence mentioning it might be appropriate; merging the article would be WP:UNDUE. - SudoGhost 17:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean very few sources? It already has two references in the article. I think the qualification for notability is passed even with few sources. --JBrown23 (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It has one reference discussing the subject, and another mentioning it in passing while discussing something else. That's not much for significant coverage. - SudoGhost 13:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:N asks for significant coverage in reliable sources for a topic to be notable. Nageh (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Bitcoin. The Namecoin project apparently maintains its own page for mentions and publications on Namecoin. There isn't much, and while the quality and extent of coverage in RS sources does not warrant a separate article on Namecoin a mention of it in the Bitcoin article is deserved. Nageh (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. If that's all there is to say about this technology, we should at most cover it in the appropriate context. The indiscriminate heap of perhaps-relevant references is headache-inducing.  Sandstein  18:31, 13 December 2012 (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.