Deletion of Bitcoin Magazine

Comment: I would ''like'' to keep this article, as I accept the argument from the essay  for presumptive notability based on extensive citation in reliable sources, including scholarly sources (and, unlike the essay itself, I would extend that to online as well as print magazines, the guideline  to the contrary notwithstanding—I think this is one of the situations where the commonsense-exception clause in the description of guidelines would apply). A number of the "keep" votes above appear to me to be based on similar reasoning. But even a presumptively notable topic still needs reliable sources if its page to be kept, and, like {{u|Cunard}} above, I have not had an easy time finding sources for this one. A large part of the reason is likely the one mentioned in : "when searching for sources on media outlets, the results are often pages produced by the outlet, making it difficult to find significant coverage in multiple sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NMEDIA||WP:WEB||WP:NMEDIA)

Comment: a merge to Vitalik Buterin is fairly clearly incorrect, per Jtbobwaysf. Trouble is those sources are skimpy and passing mentions (see ). That's the trouble with articles about news media - they tehd not to be written ''about''. (CoinDesk has the same problem.) I'd have ''thought'' there'd be enough about it, but it's looking like there isn't
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NMEDIA)

Comment: it is not a strong article, but it meets the  notability guideline for a publication, even as an important publication for a niche market.  In a previous discussion of this type on a novel aircraft in development, I recall an administrator pointing out to me that "even a balsa wood model airplane" might be able to meet  and have an article about it in Wikipedia, as long as it had coverage about it in other media.  Look at all the garage bands we have articles on in Wikipedia, or barely-beyond-self-published fantasy fictional works, with limited coverage in local online or home town newspapers.  Bitcoin Magazine and its sources are ''far'' above that rather low bar.  Merging it with the |BLP article of some notable previous author of the magazine makes no sense at all, and would be outside standard policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:BLP)