Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decentralized Autonomous Corporation

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. L Faraone 07:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decentralized Autonomous Corporation[edit]

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

Is purely original research. Exists apparently to promote an individual's pet theory, which does not appear in academic literature or reliable sources, and also apparently to promote Bitcoin. No reliable sources exist discussing the page's concept. All the sources that are of reliable origin are of oblique and minimal relevance to the subject. Snouter (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with Snouter's assessment. While the article has issues, I think that it is a real and existing concept that has been explored in fiction, as well as theoretically. While DACs might not currently exist, the concept is hardly a difficult one to grasp, and we shall see them existing in the future. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the concept, but the article's identification and description of the subject is purely WP:ORIG and corresponds to no reliable source. Isaac Asimov's books about robots would not support the creation of an article for 'Intelligent Autonomous Being' with original descriptions of what is necessary and sufficient to constitute such a being. Snouter (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interestingly, I just finished reading WP:ORIGINALSYN and came to the same conclusion myself. Give me a few weeks to find some secondary/academic sources for my pet theory before you delete it. --dbabbitt (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an expert in related fields, I do not believe that such sources exist. The problem with the article is not that it lacks suitable references. The problem is that it is purely the product of original research on the topic. There are sources that discuss the possibility of similar phenomena, but not under this name or classificatory matrix. I should be clear: this is not a criticism of you or of the concept about which you are writing. Snouter (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started this page assuming that I would eventually find the proper name/classification for this phenomenon and end up with just a redirect for this article. I tried to cover a lot of ground - economic, protocols, business, etc. - in hopes of running into some reliable source. Stan Larimer, the guy who coined this term, says that it didn’t come up on Google before Invictus Innovations first used it, but that is about as useful as having a Wikipedia page on Barney's Bongo Burger just because the chef came up with a unique name. What is the similar phenomenon, pray tell? Autonomous agent? Maybe we can salvage some of the hard work I put into this and move it to another page. --dbabbitt (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ehhhhhh, I really don't see why there is any need to delete this. u:inh is correct. so, please keep, and let's find something more harmful to extirpate. ... jane avriette:talk 14:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very well written article, better than thousands of articles on wikipedia. An article like this should be marked with Template:Refimprove rather than deleted. Testem (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A simple google search finds 136k results so this is obviously not original research. There is problem of reliable sources and, maybe, bias views, but the article should be kept and annotated with the adequate templates. OriumX (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect factually. A Google verbatim search for the subject in quotation marks finds 45 results. Most are bots that have indexed this page. None are reliable sources. This AfD needs attention from experienced admins because the comments here misunderstand its reasons. Good writing does not support original research's being included in Wikipedia. This well-written article should be moved to userspace until reliable sources exist. Snouter (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the David Johnston white paper a reliable enough source to base an article about decentralized applications on? I'll move this to my userspace and stick to just summarizing to atone for my original syn. --dbabbitt (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whitepaper has not been published or covered by a reliable source (Bitcoin News Feed would not be considered an RS) and so would not be sufficient to establish notability of the subject.Dialectric (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated, this is original research, which is not allowed.--Citing (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article admits it is "currently being developed". Wait until it is both developed and noticed by some independent source beside the person promoting it before it has an entire article. In English only proper nouns are capitalized, and thus from the capital letters this seems one very specific entity (or else is not written correctly). For that matter, the article on His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston does not mention this topic, so perhaps it is a different one (the blog author claims to be from New Orleans, Louisiana?). This generally looks dubious. W Nowicki (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. The author's user page includes the following: "The 'game' of Wikipedia is to get your crackpot theories and daring new analyses to survive page edits long enough to become established as part of the conventional wisdom. (This is a lot easier to do with text than it is with images. It takes real work and lots of political maneuvering to get creative images to stick.) Here are some tips: ..." 173.169.152.156 (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It pains me to say this: I am a fan of the concept, proud member of the bitcoin community, and advocate of some of the ideas that the article brings up, but you can't escape the facts of the issue. Another user mentioned thousands of search results for "Decentralized Autonomous Corporation" but if you ignore results from the last few months, only 160 results show up, mostly forum links and redirects to the few actual articles by bitcoiners. While the idea intriuges me (as it should anyone), it's not fair to have a wikipedia article about it until either more actual academic (economic/political) experts discuss it formally, or until such ideas are implemented in the real world and described by some credible news organization. The mere existence of bitcoin and it's description in the press doesn't count because it is not a corporation as such. Rustyfence (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Synthesis/OR as discussed above, and a borderline neologism- term has no use in academic scholarship or RS, and almost no use at all, as mentioned above, apart from the whitepaper which appears to have originated the concept and the pieces in bitcoin magazine by Vitalik Buterin which are not sufficient to establish the notability of this concept.Dialectric (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep. I'm working on creating a DAC wiki explaining its significance. The DAC concept is part of a broader movement to create a distributed/decentralized web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.74.67 (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to keep an article. 173.169.152.156 (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2013 (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.