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-Qt. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoind (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)

All citations in this article are unreliable primary sources. I fear it might not pass GNG. But, perhaps folks with more knowledge of this subject feel differently, as I am basing my nomination soley on what I see in the article and what I found on Google. SarahStierch (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Gavin Andresen is the head developer of Bitcoind and owner of that forum. I'll try to see if there are alternative places where he announced this release but it seems this is the best I have at the moment. I feel obligated to disambiguate the different pieces of software that are in the Bitcoin system and that's why I created this. I'll be happy to answer any other questions and concerns. : ) --HowardStrong (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I've provided reliable references. I will continue working on the article tomorrow. Thank you! --HowardStrong (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to BitCoin Bitcoin-Qt (per below discussion). HowardStrong, the current references are not reliable, because they come from the primary source, bitcoin.org. These can help provide some basic information about the program, but it cannot support the notability of the subject, which is a necessary prerequisite for having an article on Wikipedia. The program seems to be uniquely related to BitCoins, and so perhaps some of this information might be better placed there. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 09:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Working in command-line mode is very common in Unix and Linux operating systems. I believe Bitcoind should also have its page in Wikipedia, in a similar fashion as the Netstat command. Here is a reference to the bitcoind man page in Ubuntu. Bitcoind is also quite notable. It is used, not only by the Bitcoin-Qt client, but also by the Armory client and others. --FrankAndProust (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A particularly bad example, because the existence of that article is also somewhat objectionable. See WP:OTHERCRAP. Keφr (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am of the opinion it still may have the notability to make it in Wikipedia, but I also accept it is possibly fair to wait some time and check in the future if its notability in the web and its presence in Linux distributions improve. As far as I am concerned, you can redirect Bitcoind the article. --FrankAndProust (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bitcoin, but if there is anything worth merging, I won't object. Most non-primary sources will probably discuss the dæmon in conjunction with the network it attaches to; keeping the articles separate will risk creation of a WP:POVFORK. Keφr (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bitcoin. Article's subject has no notability and zero third-party reliable sources. If it gets to the point that this specific subject warrants a separate article then that's one thing, but this article, from what I've seen looking online, has no notability that would warrant a separate article. - SudoGhost 18:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bitcoin-Qt: there's nothing to pass WP:GNG for inclusion or to pass WP:V for merge. As this software is distributed within Bitcoin-Qt, this target is more appropriate then Bitcoin. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue I have with redirecting it to that article is that I don't think the Bitcoin-Qt article is itself notable enough for a standalone article either. - SudoGhost 20:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with this observation, but Bitcoin-Qt is not queued for deletion yet, and if it gets also redirected (same rationale applies), the double redirect would be fixed by bot. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, if the target subject were notable, then that would be a better target. I'm not opposed to that being the redirect target, I just don't see it lasting long as an article itself. - SudoGhost 21:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I concur again. I just didn't dig the sources for that article (I'm not interested in its subject, and this AfD won't result in its deletion anyway), so I simply can't presume it short-lasting. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect with Bitcoin. The Bitcoind article appears to be an attempt at a WP:POVFORK. Bitcoind is almost never discussed independently of Bitcoin, since it is the first reference implementation. --Error28 (talk) 00:04, 23 August 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.