Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namecoin

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 delete. v/r - T P 20:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Namecoin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources that would suggest notability. Cybercobra (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not distinguished itself as anything bigger than something made up at school one day. Shii (tock) 04:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment oh come on, it is hardly something that was made up at school. it's a real project with real users. a better argument against it existing would be the lack of references that lead to non-partisan sources. or the lack of a real history section. but it is not something just made up at school. i vote to merge with bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.73.110 (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The most popular Namecoin exchange[1] traded roughly $20,000 in the last 24 hours. Imperi (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE --Cybercobra (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote keep because I found this notable source from CNN: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/17/the-clock-is-ticking-on-bitcoin/ . Relevant quote: "Now there are even other Bitcoin-like currencies, such as Namecoins, which are bought with Bitcoins and used to pay for domain name hosting." Tommy (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That single sentence is the entirety of that article's coverage of Namecoin; one sentence is definitely not "significant coverage". --Cybercobra (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the article does not significantly cover Namecoin according to the "significant coverage" definition. Would anyone have anything against a merge with the Bitcoin article instead? And if so, why? To everyone who is upset about a likely deletion: Namecoin will probably become notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability very soon anyway. We can re-add it when CNN or someone considered about equally notable writes a complete article about it. Do we need to make a backup of the Namecoin article until it becomes notable or is there a way to restore deleted articles? Tommy (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - To your very last question, yes: WP:REFUND --Cybercobra (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is it with rampant deletionism on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.148.129 (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not notable? Many thousands of people are mining namecoin, the hashing power today is 1 terahash. It's certainly new, but the adoption rate has been exponentially faster than bitcoin (BTC) already and there are no signs it's going away. In fact, in a month or less, NMC will be mined by everyone mining BTC. At that point it has to be considered every bit as notable as BTC, moreso if you consider the p2p dns system of namecoin has the potential to remove the need for internet applications to use centralized DNS for name to ip services. A deletion now will certainly mandate an addition later, at the least. I could see the benefit in merging it into an 'alternate block chain' article as other competing alternate blockchains such as beercoin, multicoin, and weeds deserve mention, if only in the history section of such an article. Some external links of interest: http://exchange.bitparking.com, http://namebit.org, http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/18/ruxum-wall-street-level-security-comes-to-bitcoin-with-new-exchange, http://namecoin.us, http://dot-bit.org. Note the new exchange (ruxum) is supporting NMC to many new currencies. ---- comment added by Bougyman (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opinion. Long term, this article is going to exist. Delete it a few times in the meanwhile if it helps meet some internal wikipedia standard, or whatever. Note that one way to organically grow it could be to have a "derived blockchains" section on Bitcoin. That'll give a place to keep developing and sourcing the topic, at least until it becomes proportionally too big to stay in the Bitcoin article. 99.58.56.123 (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The only real article about Namecoin I've found is this, which indeed is a significant coverage of Namecoin, but one can argue against the reliableness of download.bg. Also some of the editors here should take note that AfD discussion is not a voting process, but searching for consensus. Rymatz (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin | http://github.com/vinced/namecoin | https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Dot-bit | http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=6017.0 | http://www.reddit.com/r/namecoin | http://bitcoinweekly.com/articles/technological-jailbreak-bitcoin-to-namecoin | http://thebitcoinsun.com/post/2011/06/07/The-Rise-of-Namecoin | http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=23505 | http://www.tribbleagency.com/?p=8072 | http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2546815 - This seems to be nothing more then a Troll to get this entry deleted. Anyone using google can tell that namecoin is indeed a real project and has the right to be on Wikipedia, if you delete this entry you might as well delete the bitcoin entry. comment added by (netxshare) 00:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Those sources appear to all be either primary or unreliable. Re: your last sentence, see WP:OTHERCRAP. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A logical argument against the premise above as well as logic for denying notability of a currently actively traded currency, rather than repetition of the initial technicality of reliable sources; a subjective metric, would be appreciated. Bougyman (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's far from mere a "technicality", it's a key leg of one of Wikipedia's core guidelines. We likewise have guidelines for determining source reliability: WP:IRS. The generally-accepted yardstick is the general notability guideline, not arbitrary statistics (including number of users or market volume). --Cybercobra (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If bitcoin entry is valid should the bitcoin wiki not be a valid source? comment added by (netxshare) 01:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  - ~~Wikipedia is not supposed to cite itself. And please Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki --Cybercobra (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - I was talking about https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin that Wiki, I was saying since bitcoin has a entry on Wikipedia should their Wiki ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin ) not count as a valid source? (netxshare)
    - Ah, my apologies. Probably not, since it's an open wiki; see WP:USERGENERATED. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Shii. LiteralKa (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that canvassing has occured. LiteralKa (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarcasm What an horrible link, filled with calls for ballot-stuffing and irrational hatred. Oh, none of that? Oh well, good thing the shields are up now, or God knows what would happen to this page. Also, thank you for erasing half of the article you wish to see deleted. — 99.58.56.123 (talk • contribs) has made no meaningful edits whatsoever, not even within this topic. 21:32, 23 July 2011 (CDT)
Delete How dare people presume they are good enough to appear on this fine website? We can't just start letting riff-raff like "namecoin" in here to sully up our image amongst professors and esteemed universities as a first class source of all things knowledge. Delete it I say, delete it at once!--Dumpstercake (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bitcoin is a big, front-page deal now, and Namecoin is a similar project in a different application space; both projects are technically interesting, socially important, and increasingly widely used. I look forward to this article being expanded as the project grows, but it's definitely worth keeping this stub. I like the joke delete vote above, btw. Fang2415 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- lacks reputable independent sources. Lorem Ip (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously there's a major canvassing issue here. But that aside, this lacks the significant coverage from independent and reliable sources needed to pass the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bitcoin. Not notable in its own right according to WP:GNG, but worth retaining as part of a parent article due to popularity and future notability. Yunshui (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2011 (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.