Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripple (payment protocol)

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The result was withdrawn by user; result keep. (non-admin closure) Ethically ^(Yours) 07:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple (payment protocol)

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

Another bit- (this isn't based on Bitcoin at all, actually) cryptocurrency deletion discussion.

All sources are either forum posts, GitHub links, and links to the currency's webpage. Doesn't appear to meet criteria as per WP:GNG. The only source I could find that wasn't passing happens to be a reliable source, Forbes, located here, but one alone doesn't cut it. [citation needed] 22:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete That looks like one of the blogs hosted by Forbes rather than Forbes itself. And as such is little more notable than e.g. a Blogspot Blog. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. The multitude of citations are all primary sources. However, I found an article in IEEE Spectrum about it [1] in just 30 seconds of googling, so probably more exists. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found another article in The Verge [2] which covers Ripple and Zerocoin, although it mostly cites from the aforementioned IEEE one for info about Ripple (lazy web journalists). There are also some brief mentions / academic citations for Ripple like [3]. If we can have articles like Tahoe-LAFS based essentially on the same level of coverage (that one survived an AfD), why not this? Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also found [4] in Informationweek (although that site seems to be more or less a blog aggregator these days...) and a chunk in this loser's roundup in Digital Trends. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-coverage with bitcoin in Financial Times [5] and Esquire [6]. Seems to meet WP:GNG with all the above. The article should be broadened to cover the company as well; there's funding info an so forth in those sources. (I see it was renamed a couple of times in a [mistaken] attempt to make it tech-only.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And [7] says "Today, OpenCoin, better known as the developer of open source payment protocol, Ripple, ..." so there's even more coverage if plug their (somewhat confusing) old name together with Ripple [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination due to clear establishment of sourcing material and little to no delete votes raising any other known concerns prior to some guy who chooses not to reveal his own name (muh privacy). [citation needed] 21:17, 21 December 2013 (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.