Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Improvement Proposals

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. If anyone would like to work on this article in Draft space, contact me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Improvement Proposals

Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. Has not improved since. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sources are clearly inadequate to support notability. BD2412 T 02:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and previous AfD. Notability isn't established. Bsoyka (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete due to lack of notability CT55555(talk) 07:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More crypto, um, stuff? I don't even understand what this article is trying to explain to me, and sourcing is useless in trying to explain it. Various links to non-RS sites don't help the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination rationale Bruxton (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or maybe draftify - there is a lot of information here, and GitHub may hit the expertise exception for self-publication. However, while I know a little about software development -- and find this on its face to be a reasonable article, not unlike a number that I have edited elsewhere -- I am not certain that it's a good Wikipedia article. In particular, the ratio of citations to assertions is still quite low, even if I don't personally object to a citation to a GitHub project. It's par for the course in software development, but I guess it would still be a primary source that does not demonstrate notability. I suggest running this past some people with specific knowledge of the process/projects involved. I would defer to such a person's opinion, which is why I say weak. It may also be too close to an instruction manual. And yet. Bitcoin is important and this is how it happens apparently. It is true that like making sausage, it is neither pretty nor very readable. Elinruby (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2022 (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.