Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lemon 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. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon Wallet[edit]

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

Of the hundreds of Bitcoin wallets available, this defunct wallet does not stand out. Notability not established. Ysangkok (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has plenty of reliable sources coverage in the article such as CBS, USA Today, CNN, PC Magazine, NYT blog (blogs are allowed from NYT). I don't see any mention of bitcoin in the article. Atlantic306 (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources, some of which include [1], [2], [3]. Many additional sources are also available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources present are enough to show passing WP:GNG. It is worth noting, this article from The Wall Street Journal and this from TechCrunch are substantial enough above any threshold to call them passing mention. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too much coverage to delete, meets WP:GNG easily. scope_creep (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've never heard of this product, but independent reliable sources clearly have. That's what counts. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surpasses WP:GNG due the the amount of reliable sources that have mentioned it in detail. As nominator said there are hundreds of Bitcoin wallets out there, but how many of them actually have been mentioned as much as this one has by news sources and such. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2018 (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.