Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Improvement Proposal

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (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)

This is not written like an encyclopedia article. It only has primary sources. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete This article would need to be completely rewritten in order to conform to Wikipedia standards, however it does not appear that the necessary reliable sources exist to do that. In its current state, the only option is to delete. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Puzzledvegetable: I just added some non-primary sources. Your point is now moot and invalid. --187.178.163.96 (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You added crypto sites. We need coverage in Reliable Sources - such as mainstream press coverage, or peer-reviewed academic coverage - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard:. How do I identify peer-reviewed academic coverage? Are any of the sources I just added peer-reviewed? Like for example, Google claims the paper Atomic Cross-Chain Swaps has been cited 108 times. Is it peer reviewed? --187.178.163.96 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of RS coverage. Possible redirect to Bitcoin - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard:. Wouldn't it be better just to move it back to Bitcoin Core since that is where I moved it from? Links and bookmarks from other internet pages would be less likely to be broken that way, don't you think? --187.178.163.96 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Merge with Bitcoin or Bitcoin Core Agree with norm / other Wikipedians, at this moment I don't think BIP has gain notability beyond groups within Bitcoin / Crypto society. The information on the current article may be useful complement to BitCoin so I suggest merge with Bitcoin or Bitcoin Core and do a redirect. (Honestly while I am very familiar and has a strong interest in cryto, I don't know if Bitcoin Core as a software meets GNG either, I doubt other Wikipedians will consider it as notable.) xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 22:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Xinbenlv:. Ok, I have nominated Bitcoin Core for deletion as you suggested. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Core. --Ysangkok (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ysangkok: the Bitcoin Core nomination is not useful. Merging this BIP content into Bitcoin core would make sense. You should check Bitcoin Core for GNG prior to nomination, it has widespread coverage in mainstream press (NYT, WSJ, Fortune, NYT, New Yorker, etc). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This should not be merged into Bitcoin Core, the BIPs process is not part of Bitcoin Core, it's a separate community run effort. (In fact, I believe by the numbers Bitcoin core doesn't even implement a majority of the specified BIPs). --Gmaxwell (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. The general notability guidelines are not met. The newly-added sources may be independent and reliable, but as far as I can tell, they fail to significantly cover the topic of BIPs. Each source discusses a specific new feature of Bitcoin, only discussing the BIP process in passing. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@BenKuykendall:, what makes you think it has to pass under GNG? It is a niche article. Besides, the GNG notes that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists". This article is a list. --187.178.163.96 (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@187.178.163.96: it is not clear that this is a list -- a list would be titled something like List of Bitcoin Improvement Proposals and would need unambiguous inclusion criteria (listing selected BIPs is not sufficient). Regardless, a list must pass equivalent notability standards. To quote WP:LISTN: the list topic must be discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. To echo my comment above: the present sources discuss individual BIPs, not the group or set of BIPs as a whole. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete / smerge to Bitcoin. Everything has to pass GNG. All other inclusion guidelines are just indications of what is likely to pass GNG because GNG is based on core policy. Guy (help!) 00:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Bitcoin. Isn't of free-standing interest outside of Bitcoin. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Merge, not Delete I support merging this into the main Bitcoin article. The information is important enough for the development of Bitcoin and has several references and citations that could be kept with some cleanup. --Molochmeditates (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)