Quote from: dwdollar on July 20, 2010, 05:49:45 PM

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?

An encyclopedia article in the early 1900's about an airplane likely would have included more material about Robert Langley than the Wright Brothers, and the Wright Flier likely wouldn't have been recognized as notable or noteworthy for some time after its initial flight.

Wikipedia works off of scholarly publications for proof of notability, and the quality of the source is of importance. For myself, I also support the "No Original Research" philosophy as it keeps discussions serious and from drifting into glowing advertisements for a topic.

Please, don't take this personally... and keep in mind that Wikipedia is reflective of popular recognition of a topic rather than the source of that recognition. There is a reason for what it is that they are doing, and there are some valid points being brought up on the deletion request. Also note that there is a discussion going on, so if you want to save the article try to at least satisfy the policies that have already been established. In terms of Wikilawyering, I've done my best to save the article. The only move I can possibly make is to try and convince the admins to prolong the discussion (aka "re-list") for another week due to a "lack of consensus" on the topic. That is a delay tactic rather than a rational to keep.

I have no doubt that there will be articles about Bitcoins in the near future that can provide the reliable independent sources that the Wikipedia admins are looking for. If the article is deleted, it would be useful to re-create the article adding the new sources. BTW, I don't think it will be as hard to undelete as is suggested by another comment here, but I wouldn't make a request for undeletion until after several new sources come out and at least a month or two passes. Be patient.