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. Tone 22:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skycoin[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Skycoin (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)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. It was declined in AfC numerous times for the same reason. The references are contributor pieces, the official website, or industry publications. The rest are brief mentions that are not in-depth for notability. CNMall41 (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Hyperbolick: Please be aware that this is not a vote. Your entry can (and should) be ignored if you do not present any reasonable arguments to support your position. See WP:JUSTAVOTE Retimuko (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except WP:OTHERSTUFF is 100% applicable to your argument. If there are issues with other pages, they need to be dealt with separately. For the references you mentioned above, can you point out which ones are in-depth and talk about Skycoin in detail (not just brief mentions)?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF might apply if there was only a small percentage of similar pages, but when the vast majority of cryptocurrency pages on Wikipedia (dozens of pages) contain fewer sources, of similar or lower quality, then that's a precedent.
The United Nations video discusses Skycoin technology several times, and the NASDAQ video is entirely about Skycoin (the video was published by the official NASDAQ account).
The Bloomberg source is entirely about Skycoin.
The Forbes articles (which you removed) were entirely or substantially about Skycoin (I don't see any Wikipedia rule that says Forbes articles are unreliable if published by a contributor).
The Binance article on Medium that announced the Binance/Skycoin partnership was also removed because "medium is unreliable". But that article was published by the official Binance account. So why is it considered unreliable when Binance says it has a partnership with Skycoin, just because Binance chooses to make that announcement on Medium? (Binance also made the same announcement on Twitter).
Today I added a link to an article discussing the partnership between Skycoin and John McAfee. (McAfee also announced this on Twitter).
I know Wikipedia doesn't accept Twitter links as reliable, and I haven't included them in the article. But surely if they come from the official account they are actually reliable. Times are changing, and Wikipedia should perhaps recognize official/confirmed social media accounts (Youtube, Medium, Twitter etc.) as reliable sources. Peak Debt (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a precedent for deleting those articles too. Fortunately, we're fixing it bit by bit, and this AFD is part of that.
That it was mentioned in a video at the UN does not pass WP:RS.
The Bloomberg listing is a directory, not a news article.
Forbes contributor articles are literally unedited blog posts. The WP:RSN has long deprecated these.
Primary sources and passing mentions don't count for notability.
I just did a reference check on the article. Almost all sources are bad, and many are irrelevant and don't even mention Skycoin.
I urge you to read WP:RS and WP:RSN, all your questions here about Wikipedia sourcing are answered there - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. A video that was clearly recorded at a United Nations conference is reliable. The NASDAQ video is reliable.
The fact that Bloomberg lists Skycoin in its directory shows notability.
None of the sources are irrelevant. The few that don't specifically mention Skycoin are important for context.
Social media announcements from the official accounts of organizations like Binance should be considered reliable.
If you say "Almost all sources are bad" then you must agree that some are not bad. The article should be kept so that it can be improved upon, rather than deleted. Peak Debt (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peak Debt: Analyzing the "other" cryptocurrencies you mentioned to help give you an idea on what would make something notable enough. Cardano had an AFD closed as "no censensus" ealier this year. I'm not easily finding anything that would make it obviously notable but it has several mentions in Bloomberg (articles) while skycoin has zero. Zcash is easily more notable that most cryptocurrenices with coverage in New York Times, Washington Post, and Bloomberg. For PotCoin, Dennis Rodman's promotion of it during his North Korean trip might be enough. Synereo is probably the least notable and a good candidate for AFD. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Missed CNBC, which is just a list of quotes from founders and CEOs like it says in the title - not independent coverage. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This ban is particularly unfair since almost all the sources were added to the article while it was in draft, before it was approved for creation, and I have never made any change to any other cryptocurrency page on Wikipedia. Peak Debt (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Striking comments of topic-banned editor. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is likely a sock puppet or a friend of Peak Debt. It's only edit is to this AFD and they're both doing an all caps "KEEP". As for your argument with coincentral, I'm not saying it's an untrustworthy site but it's barely a year old while there are still discussions going on whether the five year old CoinDesk is acceptable to use (See WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk for a recent one). My view is that sometimes it's okay to cite them in an article but they shouldn't be used to establish notability lest we have hundreds of new shitcoin (not even saying skycoin is a shitcoin) articles just because CoinDesk or some other coin site wrote about them one time. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment @Morgan Ginsberg: I would suggest not to throw accusations regarding sock-puppetry without serious evidence. You might be right, and it does look suspicious, but let us try to stay on topic and keep this discussion civil. Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, not my sockpuppet, however I have let a small group of fellow cryptocurrency enthusiasts know that this page has been nominated for deletion, and it's possible that some of them will offer their comments. I do not personally know the user Joelcuthriell. Peak Debt (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Striking comments of topic-banned editor. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a first time contributor to discussion, I thought it prudent to conform to the existing format for sake of ease. Wikipedia editors have a stellar reputation for their professionalism, so I hope my first interaction on a discussion remains so. I noticed the initial edits today through an alert on Twitter for an account that watches Wikipedia edits: https://twitter.com/CryptoNewsBot/status/1059491155958816768 Joelcuthriell (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a decision is made to delete this article then can I please request for it to be moved into Draftspace instead so I can continue to work on it. There will be increasing media coverage about Skycoin in the future, especially after the recent partnerships with Binance and John McAfee. I also ask for my ban to please be lifted. This ban was unfair given that I used the already existing Cryptocurrency articles on Wikipedia as a guide when choosing my references, and almost all the references were added in draft before the article was approved for creation, I was never given any warning that I might be banned for adding these references and I have never edited any other Wikipedia cryptocurrency page. Peak Debt (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Striking comments of topic-banned editor. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. Your comments here blatantly violate your topic ban. The fact that you have never edited any other page is not in your favor. See single-purpose account. Retimuko (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My comments don't violate my topic ban. I am no longer editing a cryptocurrency article. I am only contributing to this discussion about possible page deletion. It would be rather unfair to propose deletion of the page and then ban me so I can't object to the proposed deletion, right? Insisting that the main contributor to the page is banned from commenting on the proposed deletion of the page reeks of bias and censorship. I have appealed the ban through the official channels on the following grounds.
1. I have only ever edited one cryptocurrency page, the Skycoin page.
2. I used the existing Cryptocurrency pages on Wikipedia as a guide, and used sources of similar or better quality. Sources included Forbes, Reuters, The United Nations, CNBC, Bloomberg, Nasdaq, MIT and the BBC.
3. Almost all these sources were added to the page while in draft, before it was approved. These sources were effectively approved by the administrator who subsequently approved the page for creation.
4. There was no edit war on the page. I was basically the only person working on it. So none of my edits were disruptive. I did not revert any changes made to the page by administrators or others.
5. I was not given any warning of a possible ban beforehand.
Also, I did not say I have never edited any other page. I said I have not edited any other *cryptocurrency* page. I have edited other non-cryptocurrency pages. My account was created eight years ago. The Skycoin page is the only *cryptocurrency* page I have contributed to in those eight years, but I have contributed to other topics. It is not a single-purpose account. Peak Debt (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Striking comments of topic-banned editor. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your chances of success appealing your ban evaporate by the minute. I was trying to warn you, but you do not show any understanding of the policies. You are not supposed to touch any page even remotely related to cryptocurrencies, including this page, until your ban is removed. I see the notification about the community sanctions related to cryptocurrencies on your personal talk page. That was your warning, which you say you were not given. If you were around for eight years, you are supposed to know such things. Retimuko (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you're telling me I'm not allowed to reply to you, even on this discussion page? A notification about sanctions was posted along with the ban, but there was no prior warning that I could be banned simply for having certain references in the article. A topic ban is supposed to be a response to disruptive edits. Also, the notification of the proposed deletion specifically says that I am WELCOME to comment here. QUOTE "The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skycoin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion." Peak Debt (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Striking comments of topic-banned editor. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link that directed people here was clearly posted above, and then a bunch of new users showed up, making their first comments on an AfD thread. It's not blatantly wrong in the slightest. SportingFlyer talk 11:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, the crypto space is rife with fraud and nonsense, so I think diligence on this topic is important - but from my research, this project seems to be legitimate and notable, and likely with proper editing the article could be made more useful to Wikipedia users. Jehnidiah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/04/10/pyethereum-and-serpent-programming-guide/
  2. ^ http://tech.chinadaily.com.cn/2018-05/28/content_36284828.htm
  3. ^ http://tech.chinadaily.com.cn/2018-03/28/content_35934905.htm
  4. ^ http://storage.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn/~jiwu-shu/papers/sky%20an%20opinion%20dynamics%20framework%20and%20model%20for%20consensus%20over%20p2p%20network.pdf
  5. ^ https://www.usnews.com/info/blogs/press-room/articles/2017-10-24/us-news-announces-2018-best-global-universities-rankings
  • "has been academically reviewed by notable professors from Tsinghua University": That paper was written by "Houwu Chen and Jiwu Shu". Houwu Chen is listed as a founder on skycoin's website and his bio says "Houwu is one of the creators behind Ethereum, and the author of the Obelisk whitepaper which sits at the heart of our decentralized Internet and currency. He was formerly a PHD at Tsinghua University." I don't know Chinese but I highly suspect that the China Daily articles are paid for like the Reuters "brand feature" the other guy tried to pass off as something meaningful. Even if the China Daily articles are legit independent coverage WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." and they were the only sources posted so far that could potentially establish notability. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the more notable projects" so, bring the convincing WP:RSes to demonstrate this claim, because on the evidence so far this is completely incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: Jehnidiah, who rarely edits Wikipedia anymore, is either connected to the company (see these edits from three days ago [1], [2]), or was canvassed by the indef-blocked article creator. Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could be G11'd...someone would remove the tag though! ——SerialNumber54129 12:13, 7 November 2018 (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.
More