BitcoinTalk
They want to delete the Wikipedia article

View Satoshi only

External link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.

This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources.

The recent Slashdot article should be considered as a reliable reference:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/07/11/1747245/Bitcoin-Releases-Version-03

I cannot edit at this moment, can you guys save the WP artcile?
Thanks for the heads up. I added a section titled "Recent appearance in the news."
The WP page should discuss the maintenance cost of the p2p network.  Not only are there costs associated with the generation of the bitcoins, but their value can only be maintained as long as the 'proof-of-work' network is available and stable.

This cost, of course, is difficult to calculate but it is non-zero, though it may be trivial.  There is opportunity cost associated with the storage and maintenance of the network itself.  This could be seen as analogous to third-party gold storage fees.
This is mainly a notice to the Bitcoin community that the article about Bitcoins on Wikipedia is being deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

From my own perspective, I think that the rationale for its deletion is valid, as there is little in the way of 3rd party discussions of Bitcoins and their role in alternate currencies, other than discussions on this forum.  On the other hand, if there is anybody in the Bitcoin community that is aware of a presentation about Bitcoins at a scholarly conference, some sort of published scholarly paper, or something that perhaps is even in a "mainstream" news source.... it would be appreciated to either note that link here or on that Wikipedia article.

The reason for the deletion is non-notability.  In other words, nobody outside of the Bitcoin community is really paying attention to the currency or saying much about it.  There needs to be some better public relations and discussion beyond personal blogs and such.  Yes, I get that this is a chicken or egg situation where if an article like this is deleted that nobody will hear about it either, but it is an issue.

On the other hand, if you are a student (or better yet a professor) and want to make a splash about an interesting topic, this could be something useful to not just the project but also to help spread the word about this project.  There is a need to do some real scholarship about Bitcoins, the people involved with getting it going, and how it is different (or the same) from other alternative currencies.  Such a paper wouldn't hurt, and could be useful for a number of reasons... not just writing Wikipedia articles.
Once deleted, are the contents of the article lost forever, or can they be restored at some point?
Quote
Once deleted, are the contents of the article lost forever, or can they be restored at some point?

They can be restored.

Haven't there been articles on slashdot, ronpaul.com and other places? I've found quite a few links on Googling.
Haven't there been articles on slashdot, ronpaul.com and other places? I've found quite a few links on Googling.

None of which are considered credible sources on Wikipedia.  ronpaul.com is about as good as it gets, and that still is just an ordinary blog entry from a site participant than something that is a credible independent source.

Slashdot in particular was something generated by fans of Bitcoins and was talked about extensive on this forum before it was even posted.  Not that it was something bad for Slashdot, but that isn't how Wikipedia works.  Essentially Bitcoins still hasn't become a part of the larger world culture yet.

The purpose of this work for credible sources of information and insistence on reliable 3rd party accounts is in part to keep people like "UFO Researchers" and others with fringe theories from taking over Wikipedia.  Anybody can come up with some theory that may seem credible, but nobody is really taking seriously.  You need to demonstrate that others outside of your immediate community at least consider the concept to be credible and at least worth criticism.  None of this is happening with Bitcoins at the moment.
I don't really get it, if there was a group of 11,000 UFO researchers who called themselves UFORO and spent hours every night searching would they get no article unless someone who did not want to join took them seriously enough to write peer reviewed papers?

I think BitCoin has great potential, blah blah, but that doesn't matter. Thousands of people are doing something that's at least moderately interesting. I can't see what the harm of putting a neutrally worded article in the worlds largest encyclopedia is. It isn't like the thing is going to get to heavy to sit on a shelf.
The idea behind bitcoin has been around in research white papers for years. I imagine we should be able to list such research papers as a source. Bitcoins is the first time this theoretical idea which has been around for quite a while, has actually been implemented. I don't have sources available at the moment, but if I get some time, I'll try to look around. If anybody can find these historical research papers and discussions from before Bitcoin was started, please post links to them.
I don't really get it, if there was a group of 11,000 UFO researchers who called themselves UFORO and spent hours every night searching would they get no article unless someone who did not want to join took them seriously enough to write peer reviewed papers?

I think BitCoin has great potential, blah blah, but that doesn't matter. Thousands of people are doing something that's at least moderately interesting. I can't see what the harm of putting a neutrally worded article in the worlds largest encyclopedia is. It isn't like the thing is going to get to heavy to sit on a shelf.
The thing is, if they allow an exception to the policy once, then people will ask for exceptions _all the time_. The rule is really quite simple: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Independent means the papers on bitcoin are out, as is the forum - after all, anything can have lots of non-independent sources. And a single slashdot article is clearly not 'significant coverage' (or reliable coverage Wink.

The idea behind bitcoin has been around in research white papers for years. I imagine we should be able to list such research papers as a source. Bitcoins is the first time this theoretical idea which has been around for quite a while, has actually been implemented. I don't have sources available at the moment, but if I get some time, I'll try to look around. If anybody can find these historical research papers and discussions from before Bitcoin was started, please post links to them.
You can reference them, but they don't count for notability, as they either don't discuss bitcoin itself (and instead discuss the general concept), or they are not independent (ie, they're written by Satoshi).
Clearly the wiki community knows how to run an open encyclopedia, and clearly I'm biased. I still feel the need to say though that the "human race" has not been independent verified. It's only those damn humans ever talk about it.
Would Wikipedia have ignored the airplane until it was independently verified an explained by "professionals" who weren't smart enough to invent it in the first place?
Bitcoin is an implementation of Wei Dai's b-money proposal http://weidai.com/bmoney.txt on Cypherpunks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunks in 1998 and Nick Szabo's Bitgold proposal http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html

The timing is strange, just as we are getting a rapid increase in 3rd party coverage after getting slashdotted.  I hope there's not a big hurry to wrap the discussion and decide.  How long does Wikipedia typically leave a question like that open for comment?

It would help to condense the article and make it less promotional sounding as soon as possible.  Just letting people know what it is, where it fits into the electronic money space, not trying to convince them that it's good.  They probably want something that just generally identifies what it is, not tries to explain all about how it works.

If you post in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin please don't say "yeah, but bitcoin is really important and special so the rules shouldn't apply" or argue that the rule is dumb or unfair.  That only makes it worse.  Try to address how the rule is satisfied.

Search "bitcoin" on google and see if you can find more big references in addition to the infoworld and slashdot ones.  There may be very recent stuff being written by reporters who heard about it from the slashdot article.

I hope it doesn't get deleted.  If it does, it'll be hard to overcome the presumption.  Institutional momentum is to stick with the last decision.  (edit: or at least I assume so, that's how the world usually works, but maybe Wiki is different)