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 redirect to Bitcoin. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin-Qt (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)

No need for an article on every Bitcoin program. This software should be covered in the Bitcoin article, and used to be adequately covered there until a sockpuppeting Bitcoin forum ... character... went on a campaign to downplay its importance, even though it's the only complete and correct implementation of the Bitcoin system. Expect socks to try stacking this AFD. :( Gmaxwell (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article be treated in the same nature as BitTornado and other Bittorrent clients that are considered notable?--HowardStrong (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists, and moreover Bittorrent has also existed a lot longer and has many more well known and complete implementations. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The basic function of Bitcoin clients are covered in Bitcoin along with their various incarnations, including Bitcoin-Qt. This article can just be deleted if me nor the Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind developer, Gmaxwell, wants it. --HowardStrong (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me restate that Gmaxwell is a second-generation Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind developer. This may introduce a conflict-of-interest. --HowardStrong (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete --HowardStrong (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Keep --HowardStrong, 03:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC); diff[reply]

• Keep I've found (and added to the references) a couple of independent sources which discuss Bitcoin-Qt in particular. Surely if several independent sources talk about it then it's notable enough to stay? Cliff12345 (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references you added (‘Full disclosure: Bitcoin-Qt on Windows vulnerability, 21st October 2012’) links to a page of Gavin Andresen's blog. He is listed as one of the developers of Bitcoin-Qt, and I doubt that we can consider this an independent source. The other reference you added (‘Vulnerability Summary for CVE-2012-4682’) does not establish notability in my opinion as that's just an entry in the NIST ‘National Vulnerability Database’ that appears to repeat what is already said on the corresponding page of the Bitcoin wiki. I don't see how these can be considered ‘significant coverage’ of Bitcoin-Qt, anyway. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is not surprising that a bitcoin client does not get much attention outside of the community of bitcoin users. I would not be surprised if every user of Bitcoin would also be aware of Bitcoin-Qt, and I am somewhat surprised that Bitcoin-Qt apparantly has not received ‘significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject’, to quote Wikipedia:Notability. This may be a case where it is just too early for this software to have an wikipedia entry. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, fair enough, I didn't look at the references very carefully. If, as you say, it's too early for the software to be on Wikipedia, maybe we could move it to Wikipedia:Article Incubator for a while (and delete the article itself for now)? Cliff12345 (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see what beneficial purpose that would serve. The article will not be maintained— the software doesn't have a life outside of being part of the Bitcoin infrastructure. The Bitcoin article itself is not being competently maintained as it is now, it has a lot of serious technical inaccuracies (Which I am unable to correct so long as Atlas and his socks continue to edit the article). Creating more articles will just result in more incorrect information being spread. ::shrugs:: --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well if you really want to delete it then I'm not too bothered. I personally think that putting it in the incubator wouldn't do any harm and would save editors work in the future if it does become more notable (the incubator article could always be deleted if in a few years time it's been completely forgotten). Cliff12345 (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Oh by the way, who's Atlas? Cliff12345 (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • When searching Google for "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin-Qt", there appear to be off-wiki discussions about this AfD on a related forum. - SudoGhost 11:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. Cliff12345 (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bitcoin, until QT client has enough reliable sources to stand on its own. --Breno ^talk 10:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article lacks independent reliable sources that discuss the subject with more than a trivial mention. Changelogs and blogspot blogs do not establish notability, and the only third-party source lists a vulnurability with bitcoind (which itself was deleted) and Bitcoin-Qt, but is a trivial mention that itself links to a primary source. - SudoGhost 09:50, 27 October 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.