Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNU Taler

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. RL0919 (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Taler

GNU Taler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I couldn't find any significant independent coverage by anyone but the mentioned Richard Stallman. Largoplazo (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are three independent sources referenced. Phoronix, The Register, and The Guardian. Those span beyond Stallman himself. The article should not be deleted. -Splinemath (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoronix article is a routine, random write-up from whatever the day's stack of press releases looked like. The Guardian doesn't mention it; Richard Staller mentions it once in a guest article he wrote for The Guardian about a much more general topic; so that's Richard Staller twice, and the second time was a bare mention. Largoplazo (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "that's Richard Stallman twice" ☆ Bri (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only source that passes WP:GNG is [1], otherwise all other sources are non-independent or only give passing mentions. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 23:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, including the source located by UnnamedUser. — Newslinger talk 17:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Kampf der Kryptowährungen – das sind die Alternativen zu Libra" from Netzwoche [de]
  2. "GNU cryptocurrency aims at 'the mainstream economy not the black market'" from The Register (RSP entry)
  3. "Gnu Taler soll Kryptowährungen gerechter machen" from Golem.de [de]

     — Newslinger talk 17:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are three independent sources referenced. Phoronix, The Register, and The Guardian. The article should not be deleted. -Splinemath (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Same answers about these sources as above. Largoplazo (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Simply follow Google Scholar and Google Books search links to see several mentions in papers and books. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mentions, or independent significant coverage as required to establish notability? Mentions don't suffice. Largoplazo (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, now I see you added some to the article. I'll look at them when I'm on my computer, thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those may suffice, but I'll wait to see the outcome. Largoplazo (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources IDd by Newslinger and Google Scholar hits. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 16:48, 1 January 2020 (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.