This deleted article was restored and moved to the User namespace as a temporary holding area... on the presumption that the contents of the article would eventually become notable at some point in the future (a presumption on the part of several contributors to the article). The original AfD nomination brought in a fairly substantial number of outsiders into the discussion, as well as a few old hands that normally don't participate in AfD discussions (like myself). Some user new to the whole discussion decided to move the article back into the main namespace. Rather than starting a major edit war over this action, I am simply asking for a couple of admins to review the article as a quick glance over as there has been a substantial change in the composition of the article compared to when it was originally nominated for deletion and removed from the main namespace previously. I don't know if this deserves another AfD discussion or if the "restoration" ought to be kept. My recommendation for dealing with this if the deletion is to stand is to move the article back to the User namespace and semi-protect the page moving to sysop only. To me, the notability was borderline originally and unfortunately not much has happened to change that although the overall quality of the article has improved to at least "C" class standards. Robert Horning (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way to judge this is not here, but for anyone who thinks there is insufficient improvement over the version nominated to place a second afd. There's enough relevant change that it does not qualify for speedy G4. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What relevant change? The baseline should be the version at the time of deletion, not the version at the time of nomination; The only big difference I see is that instead of "20 sites" accepting Bitcoin it's now "30 sites" and someone linked to a bunch of them, which is, well, totally unrelated to notability. I moved it back and salted. T. Canens (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens: First, I typed the wrong word--the version I linked to was the version that was deleted of the 30th, as is obvious if you look at the date when following the link. Second, you seem to have pre-empted the result of this discussion by salting, after I had expressed the contrary opinion, without waiting for consensus here. We're supposed to discuss first, and act afterwards. I may be wrong, or the consensus may not be with me,but we still need to discuss first. As for the issue, I think demonstrating that something is in widespread use demonstrates notability DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I salted because it seems that some random account just popped out of nowhere and decided to move it back. But I suppose it could have been taken the wrong way. I've unsalted. And frankly, I might be convinced if it's 20 vs. 2000, but 20 vs. 30? T. Canens (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are precisely two and only two "reliable sources" that aren't blogs or something else that is mostly a rehashing of stuff found elsewhere. Contents of the article as it was written have been copied to other parts of the web, so it is a whole bunch of self-referencing. Of the two legitimate references, one is a local newspaper and is about the only real source from a reliable 3rd party. The other is a technical journal that merely makes mention of the project but doesn't go into details for more than a single sentence. There have been a few more blog entries written about the project that are pretty recent and well written, but we are still talking blogs and questioning that as a reliable source. Almost nothing in a reviewed manner like a newspaper or magazine that at least has an editor that can kill the piece. I did the most recent Google search looking for sources a couple of days ago and spent far too much time trying to get something more. It is a cool idea, but it still is too small of project to be on the radars of any major tech journal. About the biggest thing to mention the project has been Slashdot. I don't consider Slashdot to be a reliable source for this subject matter. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the closing admin correctly weighed the arguments. PhilKnight (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point in case any one needed, the original AfD decision to delete was endorsed by deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 4. In the more recent speedy deletion it does appear that changes to the article are too small to force a new AfD and the onus should be on the creator to show the article has substantially addressed the concerns of the previous AfD which they have not done therefore the speedy delete seems to be correct at present and I recommend the article is thoroughly reviewed before another recreation. Polargeo (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. The underlying problem of a lack of significant coverage hasn't been resolved, so the article should remain in user space. PhilKnight (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion on the present state of the draft article. From the amount of agitation and the number of SPAs appearing, I think there must be off-Wiki canvassing going on. The message to Bitcoin's supporters is: you would be better spending your energy in writing articles about it and getting them published in some reliable industry journals (i.e. those with enough editorial control to be accepted here as reliable sources). When you have achieved that, you can cite them as references and there will be no problem here. Your mistake is to try to use Wikipedia as the start of your promotion campaign - that's not what it's for. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I completely agree with JohnCD. This is an ultra-niche technology that, for whatever reason, hasn't taken off. That isn't our fault. The efforts expended trying to fight tooth and nail to get a Wikipedia article would be better used trying to get Bitcoin promoted. In other words, instead of desperately trying to fool us into thinking Bitcoin is notable when it's not, go out there and make it notable and then come back when you don't have to resort to such tactics. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
