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 reputable source Wall Street Journal references Classic only in passing, according to David Gerard (see talk page). Therefore, the subject does not fulfill the general notability guideline. The other sources are not reputable, as they are either primary or just plain obscure.
Ysangkok (
talk) 01:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect toList of bitcoin forks - the mention is evidence it existed, but I'm pretty sure it was never significant -
David Gerard (
talk) 12:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as failing
WP:GNG. List of bitcoin forks already mentions that it existed. I think we can move the existing mention in passing citation to the mention in list of bitcoin forks; to be on that list there should be at least evidence that the fork once existed. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 17:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Bitcoin forks and use anything that's reliably sourced to create a brief description to go with the currently naked entry in that list.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:32, 2 July 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.
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 reputable source Wall Street Journal references Classic only in passing, according to David Gerard (see talk page). Therefore, the subject does not fulfill the general notability guideline. The other sources are not reputable, as they are either primary or just plain obscure.
Ysangkok (
talk) 01:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect toList of bitcoin forks - the mention is evidence it existed, but I'm pretty sure it was never significant -
David Gerard (
talk) 12:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as failing
WP:GNG. List of bitcoin forks already mentions that it existed. I think we can move the existing mention in passing citation to the mention in list of bitcoin forks; to be on that list there should be at least evidence that the fork once existed. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 17:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Bitcoin forks and use anything that's reliably sourced to create a brief description to go with the currently naked entry in that list.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:32, 2 July 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.