Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrum Bitcoin Wallet

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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electrum Bitcoin Wallet

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The sources show that the subject is not yet notable for an article Patre23 (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. Patre23 (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, such an article already exists in the German Wiki. This doesn't mean that the Electrum is notable but at least shows a demand for this. I also wish to translate the article to other languages that I know. The point of the article is to have a more neutral information about the critical software.

Even after 16 years since release of Bitcoin there are not so many of wallets available.

The ideal wallet also should be open source, community driven and cross platform. Current options are:

Bitcoin Core (Qt) which downloads the full blockchain, too complicated for most users.

Cake Wallet which is based on Electron and the Electrum which is fully cross platform. It even available in PlayStore and F-Droid.

The Electrum exist since 2011 and very well known. It introduced many innovations like simplified validation, seed phrases and Lighting. It also a base for the official NameCoin wallet.

It's endorsed on the bitcoin.org https://bitcoin.org/en/wallets/desktop/windows/electrum/

Please clarify why you think this software is not important.

I'll try to add more back links. Stokito (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Stokito (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Keep: Although this article should be rewritten, there is some literature investigating the features and security of Electrum. [1], [2], [3] . Less significant coverage: [4], [5], [6]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Needs to be significantly rewritten to meet WP:MOS, and needs more sources, but they do exist. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 01:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without actual third-party RS coverage. The book sources may be RSes (Packt is a dubious churn-en-out publisher) but they are only 10- and 11-year-old cites to the notion Electrum is "continuously improving", which would probably require a more recent RS to claim. The rest is non-RSes, primary sources and OR. There's nothing here. Is there any solid third-party RS coverage? Not claims there might tentatively be in the tufure - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can find an RS as an example? I mean, there are not so many books which is probably expected for a software. But else would be good as RS? The first Google page shows many reviews, including a popular CoinMarketCap, ZoneBitcoin etc.

In one video I heard the "Electrum is used for 10% of all Bitcoin transfers" which is a big argument for notability. I didn't found the stats to confirm.

Please note that many users can't find a good and trustworthy sources and starting to use some proprietary wallets with dark patterns. I myself was overwhelmed by amount of them. But also users may found a phishing Electrum clone.

That's why it's so important to have an article about the critical software here.

If there are not enough of recent books that mentions Electrum then this is a not so big reason for deletion of the article as for me. Stokito (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finding RS in the crypto field is tricky, but is possible, e.g. Business Insider calling it the best desktop wallet, an in depth review from Techradar, an in depth review from Money (Money.com). There's also plenty of RS coverage of the attacks on it: ZDNET 2018 ZDNET 2020 Vice. Then there are various bits of academic research discussing different aspects of it: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. WP:NSOFTWARE is clearly met. SmartSE (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – One of the most used cryptocurrency wallets. Svartner (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please assess whether the sources raised by SmartSE and Helpful Raccoon establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Both SmartSE and Helpful Raccoon suggest scholarly sources that provide WP:SIGCOV. SmartSE also proposes articles from Money Magazine and ZDNet and a review from TechRadar that can be used to establish notability. (Please note that the second article from ZDNet cannot be considered for WP:RS since it was published after October 2020). I think there's enough here to meet WP:NSOFTWARE.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources from SmartSE.Canary757 (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2025 (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.