Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blockstack
- 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 23:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Blockstack (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)
A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes are is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Guylepage3 with few other contributions outside this topic. With $4M in venture funding and per review of available sources, it's clearly WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 08:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: Scholar appears to be showing significant coverage, while some of that is WP:SPIP there do appear to be several independent references ... eg ISBN:1983910821 Anderson; https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8291986/. Creating author apparently not informed by nom.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The reference namechecks the company but does not provide in-depth information on the company. At most it discusses the technology developed by the company. The reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 17:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The initial article lede is more about the technology than the company .. and prior to this edit the infobox was software not the company.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The reference namechecks the company but does not provide in-depth information on the company. At most it discusses the technology developed by the company. The reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 17:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: This article should be about the project not the company. The blockstream project has importance in the history of blockchain technology: it is a preeminent example of an 'overlay' system, a chain that runs on top of another. Also, because it switched its overlay from one blockchain (namecoin) to another (bitcoin), it acts as a powerful example of the robust nature of 'overlays'.Acuster (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- leaning delete It does have a large reference footprint in GScholar, but I'm not seeing papers that build on this idea and move forward with it; instead, it come across as everyone who does a paper on any blockchaining idea has the same section of name-dropping every other idea in the field, whether they use it or not. Therefore the large number of cites is a function of the current interest in blockchains in general, not interest in this particular idea. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Significant RS coverage not found?" Uh.... hello!!!!! These are a like, a billion independent sources where nearly 90-percent or more of their content is about Blockstack: Forbes, two CoinDesk sources, Silicon Angle, the GScholar article mentioned above, Wired, all over the course of two years and all cited in the article!!!! "the large number of cites is a function of the current interest in blockchains in general, not interest in this particular idea." So what, they're still covering Blockstack! And that's just the beginning of it all. Clearly, the nominator did not do his research so much so that he couldn't just do one simple search on Google News. This is just another example that Afd is being handled by a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about or what the intercourse notability really means. Speedy Keep and block the nominator for his disruptive nomination. editorEهեইдအ😎 16:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Are you sure you've properly read and understood both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? References that meet the criteria for establishing notability are examined to a higher standard than references used to support a fact within the article. To meet the criteria for establishing notability, references must first of all be "intellectually independent" - this means that the reference must not extensively rely on information provided by the company (company announcements and press releases) or their officers (founder interview profiles, quotations, other interviews) and instead must provide some intellectually independent opinions or analysis. Forbes is usually a terrible source, most of their article on new companies are advertorials. This Forbes reference fails as it is not intellectually independent as it relies on quotations and information from company officers provided at a conference, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The first Coinbase reference is based on a company announcement and quotations from a company officer - fails for the same reasons. Also, CoinDesk is not an independent source since CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which has an ownership stake in Blockstack. The next CoinDesk reference fails because CoinDesk is not an independent source and also fails because it also relies on information provided by the company. The SiliconAngle reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it says nothing about the company - the topic of this article - and only discusses the technology. Finally this Wired reference is a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 11:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- OK, first, "a mere mention-in-passing" Are you kidding? My browster that the company's name was used seven times throughout the Wired article, so it's talked about a moderate amount. Second, you haven't given a rebuttal about the sources from the Google News search I linked to you.editorEهեইдအ😎 15:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Third, you said the SiliconAngle article "says nothing about the company." Well, then either you didn't read the article, or you're a total idiot: THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE COMPANY!!!!!!! There's an action the company is making presented in the headline, an entire section about what the company does for the Bitcoin community (How does a Blockstack node work?), there's an entire section about the availability of the program (Installing and using Blockstack for developers), and do I even need to explain to you why this argument are complete, complete bullshit (yes, I said bullshit, and it's your fault if you get offended by it). People like you are a reason AFD is ruining Wikipedia. Go make-love yourself editorEهեইдအ😎 15:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Using your numbering system: First. Yes, the company (the topic of this article) was a mere mention-in-passing. The other times the name is used references the "platform" - which is not the subject of this article. Second. I don't respond to links to Google search and no rebuttal is needed. See WP:GHITS. If you want to link to a specific reference, I'm happy to look at that. Third. Again, this says nothing about the company. Nor is the article about the company. It says a lot about the technology/platform but this article is about the company and no other topic. It is very clear to me that you haven't read the WP:NCORP guidelines and I advise you to pay particular attention to WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Finally, I've left a warning on your Talk page for your personal attacks. HighKing++ 18:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Are you sure you've properly read and understood both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? References that meet the criteria for establishing notability are examined to a higher standard than references used to support a fact within the article. To meet the criteria for establishing notability, references must first of all be "intellectually independent" - this means that the reference must not extensively rely on information provided by the company (company announcements and press releases) or their officers (founder interview profiles, quotations, other interviews) and instead must provide some intellectually independent opinions or analysis. Forbes is usually a terrible source, most of their article on new companies are advertorials. This Forbes reference fails as it is not intellectually independent as it relies on quotations and information from company officers provided at a conference, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The first Coinbase reference is based on a company announcement and quotations from a company officer - fails for the same reasons. Also, CoinDesk is not an independent source since CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which has an ownership stake in Blockstack. The next CoinDesk reference fails because CoinDesk is not an independent source and also fails because it also relies on information provided by the company. The SiliconAngle reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it says nothing about the company - the topic of this article - and only discusses the technology. Finally this Wired reference is a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 11:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Significant RS coverage not found?" Uh.... hello!!!!! These are a like, a billion independent sources where nearly 90-percent or more of their content is about Blockstack: Forbes, two CoinDesk sources, Silicon Angle, the GScholar article mentioned above, Wired, all over the course of two years and all cited in the article!!!! "the large number of cites is a function of the current interest in blockchains in general, not interest in this particular idea." So what, they're still covering Blockstack! And that's just the beginning of it all. Clearly, the nominator did not do his research so much so that he couldn't just do one simple search on Google News. This is just another example that Afd is being handled by a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about or what the intercourse notability really means. Speedy Keep and block the nominator for his disruptive nomination. editorEهեইдအ😎 16:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment the coverage here is better than most of the other companies in this space which are similiarly hype-based; the Fortune and Wired articles may be enough. It's absolutely not a disruptive nomination. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Having examined the references, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. They fail the test for intellectual independence and rely on company sources or they don't discuss the company. References fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 11:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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.