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. Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fantom (smart contract platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

In response to a removed PROD; does not meet notability guidelines and is largely promotional in nature. Very little of this article talks about the platform itself, instead mostly its underlying technology. Most of the sources seem to be announcements of routine business activities. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Products, Computing, and Internet. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit. I disagree completely. Would you be able to describe how it does not meet notability guidelines. The subject of the article has been covered extensively by media over the past few years, and the technology is used by a large number of people. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia with subjects less noteworthy and with only a couple of media appearances, yet they remain live. Would you be able to clarify the exact parts of the article you believe are promotional? I fail to see the article's promotional content, as the text simply is an exploration of the subject's technology. It does not make sense to state that there is little talk about the platform, but rather the technology, since the two are the same; the platform is the technology.

Additionally, since you state that most of the sources seem to be announcements of routine business activities, I implore you to list examples of this. Most of the sources are articles or pages from third-party sources that have covered Fantom, the information on which the article is based. Net Nima (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Net Nima Please see other stuff exists. I can only address the article in front of me. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us and remain for years- this does not mean more should be permitted, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. If you would like to work to identify other inappropriate articles that do not meet guidelines, we could use the help.

If an article should explore the technology used by a particular platform, the article should be about that technology and not the platform itself. If this article is to be about the platform itself, then that's what should be discussed. It would be like the article about Ford Motor Company describing how cars work or how assembly lines work; that is done at Automobile and assembly line, not Ford Motor Company.

The sources are the following:

1. a basic description of the platform where someone can purchase it
2. an interview with the CEO, which is not an independent source
3. a promotional piece where it states the writers get a commission for writing about the topic, not independent
4. a piece about an individual returning to work for the platform, staff changes are a routine business activity
5. a biography about the CTO of the company, not about the company itself
6. I got an error message when accessing this but it seems to be another profile about a staff member of the company
7. this is a blog, blogs are not usually considered reliable sources
8. this is a research paper written by at least some people associated with the platform
9. a "how does it work" piece telling at the end where people can buy it, basically an advertisement
10. has no byline and a disclaimer that the writers may be investors in Fantom
11. much like #1
12. seems to be an explanation of how to use the platform, not an explanation of why it is important/significant/influential
13. the same
14. a brief piece about governance of the platform(I think), not significant coverage
15. an announcement of a sponsorship deal, a routine business activity, not significant coverage of the platform itself
16. seems to be a press release
17. an annoucment of a partnership with the platform, a routine business activity
18. the same
19. an announcement of a helmet design related to the aforementioned sponsorship deal

Note that some of these sources are acceptable for other purposes, but not for establishing notability. That requires significant coverage from independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate the time you're putting into contributing. I think it's important when it comes to a unified source of information like Wikipedia that everyone can learn from, which is why I'm keen to contribute as well.

I think some of our disagreements may come from a misunderstanding. The term "smart contract platform" just refers to a blockchain that supports smart contracts. As such, it's not necessarily a platform in the traditional sense, and describing the "platform" and the technology separately isn't really possible, as Fantom inherently is a technology. This page could also have been called "Fantom (blockchain)" and retained its meaning. The pages for Bitcoin, Ethereum, and many other high-profile blockchain projects all describe in depth their technology, and surely those are big enough not to fly under any editor's radar. Even YouTube does not describe its technology on a separate page.

To use your example, this page would be the same as the "Automobile" and "assembly line" pages, while another potential page named "Fantom Foundation" would be the same as "Ford Motor Company" as the company behind the technology, but there is not enough material to make that page feasible.

I agree that some of the references could be better, thank you for taking the time to look them over in such depth, it's a great help. I've removed and added some to be more aligned with Wikipedia's guidelines. Net Nima (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your edits have been about this platform. Do you have an association with it? 331dot (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sourcing isn't in neutral, reliable sources. The link given above by 331dot will give you an example of what we use. Was this thing covered in the New York Times? That's kind of what we're looking for. Or coverage in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! I took 331dot's notes into consideration and modified most of the sources in the latest version. Net Nima (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Net Nima Perhaps you missed it, but you didn't answer my question, do you have an association with Fantom? 331dot (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only saw your first message. Yes, I am associated. I just saw your message on my profile, and I have added a disclaimer like suggested. In regards to the article, I've kept its contents purely objective and cited the sources wherever needed for anyone to verify. Net Nima (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; You were notified of the sanctions in place with regards to editing about blockchain and told that policies must be strictly adhered to- if you are a paid editor associated with the company, it is encumbent upon you to be very familiar with relevant policies, especially with regards to notability, sourcing requirements, and conflict of interest. I suggest that you review those now, WP:COI, WP:ORG for starters. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will go through these now. I did go through the notability requirements and believe the article to be in line with the critera as sources like Yahoo Finance, Forbes, and other well-known outlets have covered Fantom. Net Nima (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with the above analysis. The article is it stands is largely using press-releases and product discussions to attempt to explain why the product is notable. All I find are similar announcements and descriptions on tech platforms. And the article is overly technical for what it is; I've read it and still don't understand what this "thing" is or why it matters. It's likely better suited for a more technical audience, not a generalist encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "proof of stake ABFT". This reads like a press-release prepared for people looking for specialist funding. More of the same as the article continues. They've designed a fancy thing that does stuff, without really explaining it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Similarly, the page for Bitcoin will not make sense to a non-technical audience, yet it is important for it to exist as there are millions learning about new technology from Wikipedia. Yes, it might be harder to understand than a general article, but every piece of information required to understand the contents of the article is right there. However, just like every other blockchain project on Wikipedia, it does require a general knowledge of how blockchain technology works. Net Nima (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You've explained it here in a few lines, and the whole article doesn't make that clear, that's part of the problem. Oaktree b (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do understand what you mean, but I guess I fail to see why it is an issue that an article is difficult to understand. I could mention any of the million articles on difficult medical, scientific, or technological concepts that neither of us would understand, and yet they bring tremendous value to many people who work with these things or wish to learn more. Net Nima (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I wrote this article educationally for someone who is familiar with blockchain technology to learn more about the technology behind a project like Fantom. Any reader is welcome to click into the page for blockchain technology to educate themselves further before delving deeper into concepts that build upon that technology. Net Nima (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia articles aren't a place for companies to tell about what they do and how it works. They are for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the company. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, which is why there are third-party sources for the information listed in the article. The only source that isn't third party is a research paper that describes Fantom's technology, which was written by its developers. However, I assumed that was fine as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other major technologies also cite their research papers in describing various parts of their technologies. Net Nima (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So, getting back on track, the now-blocked user has posted rather technical things from non-RS. All I find are CoinDesk articles and funding announcements, nothing we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. No evidence of anything that passes WP:CORP - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Many of the articles used as sources pass it, including Forbes and Yahoo Finance. Net Nima (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Net Nima Note that a source being considered reliable does not mean that the content of every story they publish is acceptable(Forbes has many blogs and paid content that are not acceptable, just as an example). That's a common misunderstanding with company representatives. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't believe that's the case with the sources I used. Net Nima (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that Net Nima is now blocked. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow that didn't take long. We wish him well. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2023 (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.