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. This is a train wreck thanks to the SPAs. No prejudice against speedy renomination, preferably with extended-confirmed protection on the AFD. T. Canens ( talk) 00:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Cardano (cryptocurrency)

Cardano (cryptocurrency) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another cryptocurrency article with poor references and promotional content. A quick WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more in reliable sources. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Significant coverage, Google News gives 16k results, 5th largest crypto per Coinmarketcap.com, and a stub is not a reason for removal. Rather than to complain about references, improve. prokaryotes ( talk) 09:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 14:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 14:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 14:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I mentioned to the project on Twitter that the main thing it needed was WP:V WP:RSes, and they tweeted this - I haven't looked through, but there may be material. They are getting a bit more coverage - David Gerard ( talk) 22:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Drewmutt. The more reliable sources are mentions of Cardano, not focused on them. Other sources are from Cardano, related sites, or the value of it. Adotchar| reply here 00:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep 15 billion+ market cap, users who actually use it, it is the 5th largest cryptocurrency, etc. But, the arguments for delete are equally valid. It isn't a small entity, but being big doesn't make it notable. There aren't many reliable, secondary sources. Vermont | reply here 14:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Adotchar Isn't that a proposal? I'm not aware of any consensus surrounding this... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
This is currently discussed here. prokaryotes ( talk) 12:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep:
What more reliable sources do you want? There's a ton of info/references available on Youtube, Google relating this project, and by no means are they 'low value' or 'promotional' in nature. This is a no-joke, peer-reviewed, academic project that has been developing since as early as 2015. Not sure as to why/how Drewmutt came to the conclusions that this WP Page is another 'low quality cryptocurrency page'.
Please view https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/cardano-blockchains-first-use-case-proof-university-diplomas-greece/ where you can take a university course.
Cardano started a research project with Z/YEN Think tank, regarding blockchain tech. that has the Dutch government interested in the protocol: https://www.banklesstimes.com/2017/12/05/cardano-foundation-selects-z-yen-for-blockchain-research-program/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Nexus conference 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1fNLSjAgHg
IOHK/Cardano Foundation whiteboard presentation regarding the Cardano project can be found on Youtube (blacklisted link?)
One would almost question the objectivity of the individual that put this article up for deletion.
-On a sidenote, I have never used Wikipedia talk before, nor edited anything before and have 0 experience in this field. Whomever wants to use the references I have given above, feel free to edit/implement them into the article. Forgive me if this edit looks messy. Katsumoto87 ( talk) 05:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notability established, lots of news in reliable sources and lots of youtube videos. -- Spada II ♪♫ ( talk) 06:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC) reply
 Comment: New accounts, 1-5 edits. Of course, their opinions do matter, but smells a bit fishy (or should i say socky) to me. Possible WP:SPA issues. Also see this. Adotchar| reply here 01:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
No, this isn't socking. User David Gerard reached out to Hoskison via Twitter and got a response. It's OK for David and Charles to communicate about this. The new accounts are probably associated with Cardano. That is also OK. Dawnseeker2000 01:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm not saying that those two people doing this is violating Sockpuppetry guidelines. Evidently my comment wasn't clear, I'm sorry about that. My point was that people are creating accounts for the sole purpose to comment here. That isn't necessarily an issue, except if one of those people creates two accounts for that purpose. This is a contested AfD, and I am withdrawing my delete. I've done some more googling into this. Although the article isn't great, there is notability per this. Adotchar| reply here 01:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
OK, thank you for clarifying (I re-read your post and that helped as well). Dawnseeker2000 03:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete cryptocurrencies are generally ephemeral. I have read articles such as this which say that it is basically a 'twist' on the more relevant Bitcoin cryptocurrency, so I don't see how it is relevant. However if it is shown that the numerous sources from quasi-news groups such as Cointelegraph, GlobalCoinReport, Cryptovest, newsBTC, Bitcoin Magazine, CryptoNinjas etc. are actually relevant independent reliable sources, then maybe this is notable. Ilyina Olya Yakovna ( talk) 11:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Why exactly would you think those sources are unreliable? Benjamin ( talk) 05:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply
To just take one at random, the cryptovest "about us" has as their "mission statement": Staffed with a team of cryptocurrency experts, we are committed to providing sound recommendations on the best and safest coins to invest in. Sound recommendations are not independent media coverage from an established source with a history of editorial oversight. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Is cryptovest even in the article? I don't see it. Benjamin ( talk) 06:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply
None of the articles I am referring to are ones I found via the article, they are examples of what I found when searching before making my comment. All those "crypto" type publications have reported on this crypto-currency multiple times, yet none of them are reliable or independent sources, hence my recommendation. To expand on this, it would seem that the authors of the articles are often either given or bought (at a low price) some of this crypto-currency in order to create the article, and others are basically reporting on everything with the word "crypto" or "coin" in it indiscriminately, often copying directly from press releases. It seems to be a web of self-interest and unreliability. However, I don't have the time or inclination to sort through every single article, so there may be scope for identification of proper sources. Ilyina Olya Yakovna ( talk) 13:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, clearly notable through extensive coverage in reliable sources. If the article has problems, fix them. That's not a reason to delete. Editor edit warring my Snow Keep should be sanctioned. Claiming 'none of the criteria' have been met and attacking the credibility of me and '90%' of the people voting keep. WP:AGF WP:NPA. Consensus is clear, this is a waste of time. There is no chance this article gets deleted. Isenta ( talk) 11:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
No one should be sanctioned for anything at this point. It takes two to edit war. You made a bold edit in closing this before the full 7 days had run. You were reverted. The next step is not to reinstate your preferred version and close it again, it is to discuss it witht he person who reverted you. I would suggest you read WP:NAC as it provides good guidance when a non-admin should close an AFD prior to 7 days. ~ GB fan 11:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
He's not even allowed to re-open it. Only me, an uninvolved admin, or a deletion review, can re-open it. Isenta ( talk) 12:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Isenta No that's not how this works at all. Like all discussions, deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are not fairly experienced, or are unfamiliar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, do not close such discussions. You closed a controversial AfD with very differing answers 3 days after it was opened. You're not an admin and you've not got the experienced to even be making these judgments. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Isenta PMC = Admin. She reverted a NAC that was hastily done to a discussion that was not complete. Adotchar| reply here 12:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
I was unaware they are an admin. If that's the case, obviously I should never have reverted them. Isenta ( talk) 12:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, It's clearly notable and has adequate coverage in sources that is only going to increase in the near future. Benjamin ( talk) 05:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment My instinct is this is largely hype, but the (currently $13 billion) market cap will be enough reason to keep. Looking at [1] it's very strange that over 80% of the volume is at Upbit. ( Upbit discussion) This article [2] from the end of November says very few people have any idea as to what this project is all about and suggests it's largely hypeware. I've cleaned up the article more ("3rd generation cryptocurrency" appears to be their promotional terminology that's not otherwise well-defined). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Your link explains the generations briefly, https://oracletimes.com/south-korea-and-upbit-upbit-driving-cardano-to-the-moon it's not just a marketing word. prokaryotes ( talk) 18:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Notability is not established based on what we personally think. If it has significant coverage in reliable sources, it is notable. Doesn't matter how trivial or important we feel it is. And this has significant coverage in reliable sources. Isenta ( talk) 01:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, This cryptocurrency is and has stayed in the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap for the last two or so months. There is no reason for the deletion of this article as it is very significant in this community. omegshi147 • talk 07:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply
We aren't looking for a reason to delete the article. We're looking for reasons to keep it. By that, I mean that notability must be *proven*. Furthermore, notability is not established based on whether the said community believes the article's subject to be significant. Vermont | reply here 10:16, 1 February 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cardano_(cryptocurrency)&oldid=1068887192"