Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mastercoin

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 delete. None of the keep votes, from SPIs, are policy based Guerillero | My Talk 05:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mastercoin[edit]

Mastercoin (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)

Doubtful notability, lacking in reliable sources. The Forbes.com article is an opinion piece, the USA Today thing a passing mention in some kind of tech/gossip article, the rest aren't proper WP:GNG sources at all. Googling also reveals this Vice Motherboard article, which is an interview of a Mastercoin spokesperson but doesn't have any real news analysis. Smite-Meister (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the topic is not notable enough to merit an article on its own since the sources are weak, but since it seems to be about an extension of the Bitcoin protocol, perhaps a short summary could be included in the Bitcoin or the Bitcoin protocol article under an "Extensions" heading. So, my suggestion is Delete or merge. Smite-Meister (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Martin451 22:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Martin451 22:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to me a reason to edit the article to make it less advertisement like and more neutral in tone. OrangeCorner (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that since this comment was made a "Criticisms" section has been added to this article in order to provide a more balanced and neutral view point.108.95.144.117 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per SamanthaPuckettIndo. United States Man (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs improvement, yes. However I believe it to be "notable" according to the guidelines of wikipedia. I've found additional websites and third parties referencing "Mastercoin" and I'll go ahead and add a few of those links to the article now. If others want to join me in improving the article by adding more third party references they are welcome to. However to delete a well known project, which has many independent references, I don't think makes sense. OrangeCorner (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please also copypaste the new source links here so they can be discussed. Smite-Meister (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New link to Mastercoin Founder J.R. Willett Interview by "Lets Talk Bitcoin" in August of 2013. "Lets Talk Bitcoin" http://letstalkbitcoin.com/e37-meeting-mastercoin/#.Us2EkmRDufQ This pod cast has 10,000 + listeners interested in the Bitcoin ecosystem and this was the first of two episodes on the topic. OrangeCorner (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New link to recent Zee News Outlet out of India, mentions Mastercoin as one of the "namesakes" of the crypto currency ecosystem. http://zeenews.india.com/business/news/finance/bitcoin-impact-laxmicoin-seeks-regulatory-clarity-for-launch_92092.html OrangeCorner (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New link to December article by digital currency industry magazine Coin Desk listing Mastercoin as one of the "Alternative Cryptocurrencies Thrive in Bitcoin’s Shadow Coin Desk a Digital Currency industry website lists " OrangeCorner (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New link to recent "Web Bush" analysis paper that mentioned Mastercoin in the section covering "Crypto Network Technology May Go Well Beyond Payments"OrangeCorner (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, hey, before you use any more time in searching for sources you should read both WP:GNG and WP:RS. Currently none of the sources you have posted above are acceptable for demonstrating the notability of the article. Blog posts and podcasts do not count unless they come from a reliable, well-established news source with editorial oversight. Passing mentions (like in the Laxmicoin article) do not count for anything, and neither do press releases. Smite-Meister (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Smite-Meister Thanks for the note. I've read the standards (before now) which you cited (just read them again) and I'll continue to offer more articles hopefully more closely in line with standard.OrangeCorner (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New link to article from Yahoo Finance covering Mastercoin's formation of a legal group called CODA. OrangeCorner (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New link to article from Business Insider discussing Mastercoin OrangeCorner (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this list of Mastercoin article on the Mastercoin Wiki List of Media Articles OrangeCorner (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this list of audio / video recordings about Mastercoin List of Video Interviews OrangeCorner (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that not all of these articles meet the criteria, however I believe some of them do. And from what I've just read on the standards page there isn't any defined number of sources required for "notability". Clearly there are a lot of minor sources and a few major sources, Business Insider, Yahoo Finance, USA Today, Forbes that discuss Mastercoin in some depth. There is also a lot of discussion of Mastercoin inside the digital currency community (blogs, pod casts, and industry magazines though I understand you discount these). And according to this link as for Market Cap Mastercoins are currently worth $50,000,000+ in network value, which I'm sure the value and size of something has an effective on notability thats the difference between a mom and pop shop and a brand / company which is national or global and thus notable to a sizable number of people. OrangeCorner (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Business Insider has a passing mention, as does USA Today. The Yahoo Finance link is the same press release as before. Passing mentions and press releases (or any material produced by non-independent sources) cannot be used to establish notability at all. The Forbes article is an opinion piece, also not good. You can tell from the sidebar where it explicitly says "The opinions expressed are those of the writer." Finally, Wikipedia does not care about the market cap and even if it did, coinmarketcap.com would not be a reliable source for it. Smite-Meister (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notes. I'm working in good faith to improve the article. I see we don't agree on all the parameters. None the less I would invite you to contribute to improving the article in both the quality of sources and the quality of the writing so that it meets the high standards you have put forth. OrangeCorner (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that the article needs improvement and I am one of the people contributing to that. However, I believe that it is notable since it summarizes information from various sources. It also aims to provide a balanced introduction to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikosBentenitis (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC) — NikosBentenitis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Wikipedia has pretty strict policies to determine notability, and with the current sources the article does not fulfill the requirements. Smite-Meister (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A major edit was performed today that aimed to make the article adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines for links and neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikosBentenitis (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am not a big user of wikipedia so I have no idea how to comment, etc. However I would like to point out the significance of an independant equity research and investment banking firm, Wedbush Securities, mentioning Mastercoin. http://www.wedbush.com/research/1.3.13_Bitcoin.pdf I know it is already mentioned here, but perhaps some people here do no appreciate or fail to realize the significance of this type of research for investors and people working in the finance business. Furthermore, there is an issue with actually 2 currencies being named Mastercoin, with another having taken the name out of the whitepaper written years ago, therefore if this information source is deleted you may very well be contributing to the spread of misinformation that will lead to regular folks purchasing the wrong cryptocurrency since there isn't even a wikipedia page on a cryptocurrency that is listed in the Top 5 in the world. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.27.171.93 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Everyone is encouraged to contribute and I hope you will become an Wikipedia Editor to add your knowledge. You make a good point. Already when entering "Mastercoin" in Google the 2nd result is this Wikipedia article in question for this original (MSC) token. I agree it would certainly add to confusion if this article was deleted. If you want to vote "Keep". You simply add it to the beginning of your statement.OrangeCorner (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability. Per nom, the Forbes and USA Today refs are a Forbes writer's blog, and a borderline passing mention. The Vice article mentioned above is also borderline significant coverage, but there is no solid significant RS coverage, and as with the proliferation of weak coin-related articles, the contributor's limited contributions and article tone suggest advert. Dialectric (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments: First, the articles mentioned (Forbes, USA Today) are only included as an indicator that there is interest in the subject (they are under a relevant heading). Second, I do not think that this protocol (Master Protocol) and the associated token (Mastercoin) should be deleted because there are other "weak coin-related articles." Third, I don't think that the argument about the "contributor's limited contributions" is valid: one contributes in the subject that one is familiar with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikosBentenitis (talk • contribs) 03:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — NikosBentenitis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Delete - abominational failure of WP:GNG, WP:N, etc. Citation Needed | Talk 15:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please specify the type of "abominational" failure of WP:GNG? Which of the "Significant coverage", "Reliable", "Sources","Independent of the subject", "Presumed" does the article violate? It would help the authors and contributors (I am one of them) improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikosBentenitis (talk • contribs) 18:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — NikosBentenitis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - I vote to keep. Mastercoin was recently covered on CCTV, A Chinese Television Network. [1] The Mastercoin Foundation is a real organization with interest growing in it exponentially by the day. Sure there may be room for improvement to this Wikipedia entry, but to remove this Wikipedia entry would be a major disservice to the public. Ryankeenan111 —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — Ryankeenan111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Comment - most of the keep votes are single-purpose accounts and the few legitimate ones have provided no reliable sources. Citation Needed | Talk 15:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Despite the claims above that the article has been improved, it still only lists the same two somewhat reliable sources (Forbes and USA Today), neither of which establishes notability. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

->*Keep Improve not delete. This would be like Bitcoin in the first year or two after the respective whitepaper was released. People need a resource to review information about a new implementation of an existing technology. This Wikipedia page should continue to serve that function with improvements in technical and theoretical applications. Information on the Mastercoin Board is probably extraneous, but more information on encoding, theoretical use applications, etc. could be provided. LuckyDucky (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — LuckyDucky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep or Merge with the bitcoin article. I think the number of credible sources will continue to improve, but I don't think deletion is adding to the community. If anything, a merge under bitcoin would still add value to the overall community of articles on this topic. — Yamashita takai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 1389569220 (UTC).
Thanks for the note. I'm open to the idea of adding a link in the Bitcoin Wikipedia article, however a direct merge might be difficult as the page is in semi-protected status currently until March 2014.
  • Delete - I don't see the significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources that would establish notability. The only sourcing of significance is the Forbes item. I cannot find anything else to go with it. This one of many crypto currencies and protocols that have sprouted due to the popularity of Bitcoin. If it establishes itself in the future, then I would expect more coverage would come then, and an article would be justifiable. But not now -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)::[reply]
Whpq. Thanks for the note. I agree that the Mastercoin project has its roots in the Bitcoin community and that it will have to stand on its own merits. However I'd like to address the "one of many crypto currencies" point. Unlike Dogecoin, Catcoin and a hundred other "alt-coins", Mastercoin does not have a "alternative" blockchain nor does it serve as a competitor / "alternative" to Bitcoin's functionalities. Thus Mastercoin is not an "alt-coin" in the sense that those other hundred project are. As far as I'm aware Mastercoin is the only protocol thus far being built on top of the Bitcoin protocol, which also has it's own token (MSC) for access to the client application. Hence why certain media outlets have found it notable and the digital currency community has widely covered it in articles, podcasts and other discussions. I hope that information is helpful in understanding why so many are following the technical and developmental progress of this project. OrangeCorner (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no disagreement from me that it is being discussed. But it hasn't got much beyond that at this point which is why I don;t think an article is justified. -- Whpq (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whpq, If by saying the Mastercoin project "hasn't got much beyond that at this point", that is to say it isn't much beyond most "alt-coins" or much beyond a proposal / concept, then I'd put forth the following facts.
First, most of the "alt-coins" that are compared to MSC often have 1 or in many cases no full time developers. The MSC project according to the public Google Docs on the Mastercoin Foundation website has 5 full time developers. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AosWigpBxkwZdHhBaUtTZV9MWUpMVWV6U3VJV1RPbmc&usp=sharing#gid=0 Most of these "alt-coins" are produced using a tool such as this one http://coingen.io/ taking less than an hour to develop and have no value beyond a slight change in parameters of how the clone functions.
Second, most of the "alt-coins" that are compared to MSC often have no backing or formal community of any kind, just a website explaining the project. The MSC project according to the Foundation website has 8 full time staff members (excluding already mentioned developers): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AosWigpBxkwZdHhBaUtTZV9MWUpMVWV6U3VJV1RPbmc&usp=sharing#gid=0 In addition there are a number of Mastercoin Foundations across the world listed on the website: http://www.mastercoinfoundation.org/ Israel, Netherlands, Asia, California, New York and Austin each of which have their own members and community leaders.
Third, most of the "alt-coins" that are compared to MSC don't have any funding for their development. MSC in comparison as mentioned in the articles has millions of USD worth of BTC a record of which can be seen on their public ledger https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtCyUJvk_IyNdGpVcnpBN2tOczFmbVRnck5TWjZuRFE&usp=sharing#gid=0
Forth, most of the "alt-coins" that are compared to MSC only have 1 implementation or "client" which by amount of code is 99% just a folk of the original Bitcoin client. In comparison I see from the Mastercoin.org website a list of 4 clients for the Mastercoin Features all of which were developed from scratch with their own codes bases, http://wiki.mastercoin.org/index.php/Mastercoin_Balance in addition I see a list of websites that offer to exchange Mastercoins for Bitcoins, most "alt-coins" are only traded via forum posts or via 1 minor exchange. http://wiki.mastercoin.org/index.php/Trading_Mastercoins
Fifth, most of the "alt-coins" that are compared to MSC have no eco-system of applications that build on top of them. The MSC Protocol seems designed to be a platform for others projects to built on top of and thus more and more websites are being launched that operate on top of the Mastercoin features starting with the Distributed Exchange.
I offer this information having read the websites and researched the community in depth in order to offer clarity on why I find this project notable and why I expect it to be notable in the future.

OrangeCorner (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guys, lets try to stay on track here. This is about notability, not comparing technical advantages or possible advantages. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, back to notability. I believe this discussion has been very productive in improving the article in that regard. I see many contributors continuing to improve the article with a total of 19 properly formatted references now displayed. Since the discussion began additional news articles and coverage of Mastercoins has happened including the Chinese CCTV News piece. I would note that this should qualify as a source, given according to Wikipedia guidelines a source does not have to be in English and does not have to be written, so that audio and video qualify. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.2700 OrangeCorner (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2014 (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/Mastercoin&oldid=1136728222"