Deletion of Bitcoin

Comment: they are an important innovation that will be discussed within academic literature as well as certain computing / cryptographic spheres...'' The prerequisite for a Wikipedia article on anything is for the words "will be" to become obsolete, with "has been" becoming more accurate. See . --'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Ok, it looks like there may be enough, I'll take a look later to see what I think of the quality, but you all should be aware that posting a note to a forum like that to attract attention is verboten, see Wikipedia:Canvassing, since it attracts folks with similar points of view. As editors here we are supposed to be neutral. Contributors to the project need to be very careful regarding |conflicts of interest, and how wonderful the software is has ''nothing'' to do with it's notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: I went through and cleaned up the article a bit. IMO, the only two |reliable sources providing any sort of significant coverage are the first two, the Inforworld article, and the article from the Hartford paper (which also appears in another online newspaper). Those of you who have come here from the bitcoin forum should keep in mind that WP's policy is that blogs generally do not qualify as reliable sources, the exception being if a blog is associated with a newspaper or journal that presumably provides editorial review. Passing mentions, forum discussions, and the like don't carry weight. Also, if the article is deleted, the author can request that it be userfied (put into the user's own space), where they can work on it more. Deletion is not prejudicial--if good sources come up with time and are added
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: All but one of the new sources are either primary, blogs, or trivial mentions, not enough to establish |notability. Sorry, but now is not the right time for an article on this. --'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: please have a go yourself and see if you can find some coverage in reliable sources. If I had found any when I searched, I would have added them. Also, Theymos, the state of other articles isn't relevant to this discussion, |other stuff exists
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAP)

Comment: Wikipedia is |not for publishing "bleeding edge" original thought, or to promote your new software concept or business model.  Even computing topics need to show Notability in Wikipedia|long term historical notability and |historical, technical, or cultural significance.  Every reference is either internal or trivial.  The article is also |advertising, and focuses exclusively on the features this product offers and its alleged advantages
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:CORP||WP:SPAM)