Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nxt (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Even discounting the off-policy "keep" views, i.e. the ones that don't talk about sourcing, we don't have sufficiently clear consensus for deletion.  Sandstein  19:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nxt

[edit]
Nxt (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)

Recreation of a previously deleted article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nxt). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I have reviewed the sources, and I don't see any reliable, independent ones used. Forums, wikis, one or two trade magazines, a bunch of passing coverage. Not worthy of an encyclopedia. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article can easily be drafted and userfied to your userspace until is is more acceptable and sourced. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support userfication.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nxt has clearly been researched, not just written about, by big serious organizations. European Central Bank describes the Nxt consensus algorithm (See 1.3 here). CME Group has done their research in their response to ESMA (link). This is in addition to the ESMA and Reason Magazine links I mentioned in my earlier comment. Ironchapel (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see NXT mentioned anywhere in http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemesen.pdf , could you provide a page / pragraph no? The ESMA mention is only in passing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ECB describes the Nxt consensus algorithm, known as forging, on page 10 (1.3 Differences between various decentralised virtual currency schemes). In the ESMA document Nxt is used as an example of a cryptoasset platform. The mentions of Nxt are not in passing, because the field of cryptocurrencies is too fast moving and competitive to be able to write without making errors and not have done the research to understand the issues. Ironchapel (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @Piotrus:I'm no expert on notability - would the announcement on reuters count as evidence? Big mass-media sources rarely write about Cryptocurrencies - and are often not accurate. But all major crypto-currency pages have written news and articles specifically about NXT - and those of course are the ones more handy for linking in the references, since they have enough detail. Though one could add the business-insider one if that would help. Also: If NXT would have to go, it would mean roughly 20 other Cryptocurrency pages would have to go under the same criteria - even though tens of thousands of people are involved in them. --Thomas (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thomas Veil: Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Are_trade_magazines.2Fportals_acceptable.3F, which should explain in detail why I have serious doubts about notability of an article that relies primarily on "major crypto-currency pages". It seems to me that such pages cover virtually all companies and products in the field of crypto-currency but the newest tiny startups, but such overstaruation of specialist articles on a given subject does not we should cover all such companies/products. "tens of thousands of people" does not indicate notability: tens of thousands of people can go to unnotable events, visit unnotable pages, buy unnotable products, watch unnotable YouTube vidoes, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Piotrus:I get where you're coming from, but I find it a bit questionable because it's such a new field. I'm in the gaming industry since 15 years, and back then no major publication would write about games. And if they ever dropped one line about it, it was always factually 100% wrong. How could you link any of that on Wikipedia then? Though of course the developments back then were noteworthy. If we delete now all alternative cryptocurrency pages, it would be a big loss - we're talking here about something that generates tens of millions of dollar worth and has big amounts of people involved. --Thomas (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Thomas Veil: I also get where you are coming from, but note WP:ITSUSEFUL. Those games were not notable back then, they became notable only once people started writing about them. And note Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources; members of that project have done a really good job telling us which outlets are good and which are not. Without such a list for cryptocurrencies, and with no-one providing an analysis of sources used in the article here, I am still not convinced this company is notable. Tell me, please: are all cryptocurrencies notable? Where to draw the line? Because it seems to me that currently we are very pro-inclusive for this field. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Piotrus:Thanks for the helpful links. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources mostly lists video game specific sites like GameSpot - but that would mean cryptocurrency pages are OK then. So what you would need is a list of which cryptocurrency sites are reliable? The field is only around since 3 years, so age is a tricky measure. On another note since you write "this company": We're not talking about companies. There is no legal entity there - it's more comparable to Linux maybe... without a singular core personality like Linus.
          • "are all cryptocurrencies notable? Where to draw the line?" - well, that's tricky. It's hard to find numbers, since by definition these currencies are mostly anonymous (or pseudonymous). NXT has 125.000 accounts - but that might not be exactly the user number. The closest of an objective measure I could think of is the monetary value (as someone mentioned it's tracked on Coinmarketcap). Then again those numbers change dramatically over half a year - as we've seen with Bitcoin, it could be 10 times more or less worth within a given month. There are more than 500 cryptocurrencies overall - so surely a selection has to be made. I'll think about it. --Thomas (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just realized I forgot to ping participants of the prior AfD; I wonder if they'd consider the article significantly improved now: @Breadblade, VinceSamios, EuroCarGT, Depreciated, Lankiveil, Dialectric, and Smite-Meister: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "are all cryptocurrencies notable?" No, because a new cryptocurrency can be easily created by copying Bitcoin's code. A copy-cryptocurrency might be notable if it reaches a high market capitalization by using clever marketing. I would consider all cryptocurrencies notable that have significant differences, changes, or improvements to Bitcoin's original source code, which acts as a base for the code of most cryptocurrencies. Nxt doesn't use Bitcoin's source code, so it is notable by that definition. Ironchapel (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @ironchapel: you are right, most new cryptopcurrencies are just mere copy pastas. This does not hold true for NXT, though which has a completly unrelated code base and does in fact work a whole lot different from bitcoin. I think NXT is among the few cryptocurrencies which deserve a wikipedia article. 16:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shorty66 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I haven't had a chance to give the article a close reading yet, but the lion's share of sources in this article are of dubious reliability (forum posts, self published, etc). Breadblade (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there seems to be some canvassing taking place to fight this AfD: https://twitter.com/cryptocoinchart/status/646372063750586368 Breadblade (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Firstly WP:KIBOSH needed. But it's a weak keep based on these sources:
-- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 15:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All of the substantive criticism advocating deletion in the prior discussion is concerned with the article's substance. But if we're talking about inclusion, it's clearly notable on its own, received substantial high-level media coverage (more than most topics in this category), and is not a company pitch. The initial parts of the article can certainly use some help, but there are other tags for that.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nxt_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1078149346"