I've been very active with Bitcoins and a long time Wikimedia user (I've been an admin on several "sister projects" even if not on Wikipedia itself). This article isn't going to be restored into the "main namespace" of Wikipedia until it becomes more famous. Wikipedia uses the term "notability" but "fame" is perhaps a better word to use here.
Simply put, you need to show a "buzz" about the topic. For something like Bitcoins, you need to show that several people are talking about it and more significantly, there are reliable sources of information.
I know that there are people here who would like to perhaps use Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. Wikipedia users hate it being used in that way, which is the problem here. Don't force this and make bad blood with the Wikipedia admins on this issue. Either Bitcoins will become "famous" and be talked about in a whole bunch of places, or it will fade away as another software experiment. It is still way too early to tell right now, but my gut feeling is that eventually there will be a Simpson's episode featuring Homer spending Bitcoins, a report about Bitcoins on Dateline: NBC, and other widespread discussion about the concept including perhaps an article in the New Yorker. I've seen this happen to other projects, including Wikipedia itself. I got involved with that project back when it was just a couple hundred people who got together as a result of a slashdot article. It wasn't even called Wikipedia at the time, but rather Gnupedia, which eventually folded into Wikipedia and a related effort called Nupedia.
I also saw a similar kind of gradual adopting to microcomputers, Linux, and many other things that most people are familiar with today. It takes time for the world to find out about what it is that is going on, even if it is the most impressive thing in the world.
This article not only went through a formal "deletion discussion", but it also has been through two formal "deletion reviews". This statement is perhaps the best one that sums up the general attitude of people on Wikipedia about Bitcoins:
This is an ultra-niche technology that, for whatever reason, hasn't taken off. That isn't our fault. The efforts expended trying to fight tooth and nail to get a Wikipedia article would be better used trying to get Bitcoin promoted. In other words, instead of desperately trying to fool us into thinking Bitcoin is notable when it's not, go out there and make it notable and then come back when you don't have to resort to such tactics.
) - Andrew Lenahan
The LWN article is certainly an excellent start towards that end, and with the article from Hartford Advocate (http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/commentary/is-it-time-for-digital-only-dollars-2
) technically qualify as two formal and independent peer-reviewed sources of information. It would be really nice if there was more. The issue here is how to get Bitcoins publicized, and attempting to do that on administrator's notice boards on Wikipedia seems to be fighting a losing battle. There are many other much easier ways to get that accomplished.