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]

• One of Wikipedia's great strengths is its leading-edge coverage of computing developments, greatly outpacing print media. Whilst it is fair to say that Bitcoin and a small number of similar systems presently have unimpressive numbers of users and are not widely known, they are an important innovation that will be discussed within academic literature as well as certain computing / cryptographic spheres. I think the proposal to delete this article misses the significance of this realm of computing which, admittedly frontier at present, is definitely of value for Wikipedia. prat (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC), computing professional, long term wikipedian and elected English wikipedia administrator[reply]
  • "will be" discussed in the literature … "not widely known" — In other words not yet a part of the general corpus of human knowledge and not yet documented. You've just made good arguments to support a case for deletion, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just for the record, Bitcoin has made the Slashdot frontpage recently: [1]. 91.32.175.1 (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait and hold on for a little while. I figured that the deletionists would get ahold of this article sooner or later, and in fact considering the attention it got on Slashdot it surprised me that it took this long. The article has certainly improved substantially since it got the Slashdot coverage, but the issue with notability is something that can be argued per the usual guidelines. For myself, I think the verifiability argument can be thrown out the window as all of the claims made in the article can be verified independently. The original research guideline is a bit trickier and may be more problematic. The same thing that keeps UFO researchers from posting wild theories does keep this from being accepted too, on the same grounds. I think that it will become something much more notable, but that hasn't happened yet and this is bleeding edge stuff. I guess the race is on now to see if anybody else in the next week might publish something, or a hard search to see if there might be some bona fide 3rd party sources of information that are discussing this topic (beyond blogs or other such stuff). --Robert Horning (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]