Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counterparty (technology)

:{{la|Counterparty (technology)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Counterparty_(technology) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Counterparty (technology)}})

This service does not fully demonstrate notability despite an better effort being put to make it jump the hurdle of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Citation Needed | Talk 03:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - Minyanville appears to be a reliable source and has a whole article regarding Counterparty - it is referenced in the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - What condition of the WP:GNG is this article supposed to fail? There are even more third-party articles about Counterparty hidden in comments of the article. - Coinburger (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

::{{ping|coinburger}} I move the hidden references to Talk:Counterparty (technology), here people and see and discuss them. To keep the article editors will be looking for mentions in the media especially non-cryptocurrency specific press and mainstream media.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

::: Thanks! I figured that there was a better place to put that material. ;) On that note, the talk page now lists mentions of Counterparty in both Bloomberg and Business Insider. Is coverage in 'mainstream media' a requisite for notability, though? -- Coinburger (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

::::It depends on the quality references, Wikipedia has a very specific definition of 'notability'. Check out the table half way down Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Primecoin_(3rd_nomination), which gives some indication of what is sort. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

::::: Being mentioned by mainstream media, let alone any periodical, is not required by Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Significant coverage by mainstream media could help establish notability, but it's definitely not required. Agyle (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Borderline adequate coverage in reliable sources. I don't consider most of the currently cited sources to be reliable (e.g., coinssource.com, cointelegraph.com, letstalkbitcoin.com, or a project creator's blog), but I would count the Minyanville article, which is particularly detailed, as a reliable source, and I'd count CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine as industry-specific reliable sources. The Counterparty project is mentioned to varying degrees in multiple articles in both CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine. Counterparty's mention in a [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-28/bitcoin-2-0-shows-technology-evolving-beyond-use-as-money.html Bloomberg article] is extremely trivial, in a sentence listing several of "the most well-known projects" that utilize the existing bitcoin blockchain, but it does reinforce, at a minimum, that this is a well known project in this field. Agyle (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

: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.