Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARDOR


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

ARDOR

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not notable, bad sources, no coverage in reliable sources Retimuko (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete 1. notability: which of these are RS? 2. WP:NOT yet another crypto promo that's to put it mildly WP:TOOSOON. Widefox ; talk 20:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment we should probably look at WP:CORPDEPTH per my comment at Articles_for_deletion/Qtum. Widefox ; talk 20:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per Widfox and nom. Note that I've removed the ref to a Wikipedia article and a section on "news" where all the links were to the company's own website. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe the article should be kept. Ardor has been covered in Forbes, Mobile World Congress, CoinDesk, CryptoSlate, and a wide number of other secondary sources. I have updated references so that they no longer include the Jelurida website. The only link that must go to their website is for the white paper, which I believe is fair given this is technology and anyone reading this article should be able to verify the technical discussion by looking at the official white paper. The rest of the sources are secondary. shurwitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.147.125 (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Do not delete, It meets WP:GNG. The article is not Advertising or direct reporting on the product, but an informational source on the unique technology. It is important the the Wikipedia audience has a reference to it. (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please don't just assert it, but be more specific: how exactly does it meet GNG? Also, editorial opinion on the merits of the technology must not count. Please have a look at WP:ATA. Retimuko (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

According to GNG, there must be significant and reliable coverage/sourcing. Forbes has discussed Ardor in more than 5 separate articles (not all of them are cited in this Wikipedia page because it is duplicative). Mobile World Congress is the largest event of telecommunications companies and utilities in the world, and Jelurida (developers behind Ardor), were recently the only blockchain finalist at MWC's 4YFN start up event - covered on all of the Mobile World Congress official channels. Ardor has been covered several times in StockNewsGazette. It has been covered on TheNextWeb.com. There are also sources such as Medium where numerous authors have discussed it. It is incredibly easy to come up with verifiable, reliable sourcing around Ardor. This article is plainly informative and includes all necessary citations - it does not advertise a product or make outrageous claims. There is also a section included on the "cons" of the technology showing where competitors may overtake it. This article is written in as neutral a tone, with as notable and reliable sources as any wikipedia article. shurwitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.147.125 (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as another non-notable cryptocurrency that fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:PROMO because there is a distinct lack of reliable sources. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This seems a little unfair/one sided. I have provided direct citations for reliable sources, as per the requirements of GNG. This is, in fact, a notable cryptocurrency. I explained that in my response above. Why can users simply flag this and say it doesn't meet requirements without providing any details on which aspects of the article fail to meet these requirements? Forbes is a reliable source. Mobile World Congress is a reliable source and major annual global event. I have provided very clear examples of how and why this is notable, and the sources are reliable. Why are we allowing users to simply say "lack of reliable sources." Which sources are not reliable? It would be helpful for you to articulate what the issue is so it can be addressed. As of now, I am just seeing sections cited with no indication of why. Shouldn't wikipedia be erring on the side of those providing clear, detailed, responses instead of just flagging things? shurwitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.147.125 (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Forbes is not a reliable source, Mobile World Congress is an commercial exhibition, not an independent source. All the sources are in some way unusable, and the topic itself is promotional, so it is pointless trying to articulate the issue in any other way than we are. Editors at discussions like this generally expect you to read guidelines like WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:PROMO to understand the issue for yourself, since it would be very long winded to quote everything in those pages here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Your bias is showing quite clearly. There is nothing about this article that is promotional, particularly when you compare it to other crypto wikipedia pages. For example, you are allowing projects like Cardano to keep a wikipedia page despite the fact their technology CAN'T DO WHAT IT SAYS. They don't have side chains, and you can't actually stake any coins on Cardano yet. Ardor is the second generation of the 1st OPERATIONAL proof of stake technology. If you think the Cardano wiki qualifies, then surely Ardor qualifies since it can deliver right here, right now everything that is said in the wikipedia article. Furthermore, this article does not take shots at other cryptos - it sticks directly to the subject matter, whereas, for example, the Cardano wikipedia takes direct shots at Ethereum, despite the fact Cardano's functions aren't operational!

This article even includes cons of the project showing how competitors could overcome it. That shows it isn't a promo! I am literally noting the bad stuff about it! Everything else is just technological fact on how this thing works.

Why are you showing bias in favor of theoretical projects instead of live ones that have been invited to present at world competitions? The 4YFN competition at Mobile World Congress requires an invitation from a judge panel. You can't pay to be a part of it. Jelurida's Ardor was the only blockchain project invited to present at this major global telecommunications event. That is notable. Not theoretical, not a promise - that is a notable fact right here, right now.

For sources, I am adding more since they are very easy to come by - including Yahoo News and International Business Times. If the combination of Forbes, CoinCentral, 4YFN, and these additional sources are not considered enough - then I want details because right now you seem to be biased towards non-operational, theoretical crypto projects. This is dangerous to consumers as you are preventing them from understanding live tech - and instead pushing them towards nonexistent, speculative technology that is nothing but promises for tomorrow. This is disappointing for Wikipedia to push consumers towards untested technology instead of allowing operational, secure tech to have a well-researched and cited wikipedia page. These sources are reliable and the technology has been noted on a global stage. This article also addresses pros and cons. This addresses all issues with GNG, CORP, and Promo. [User:shurwitz|shurwitz] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.147.125 (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding further to the above, note even the World Economic Forum considers Ardor a top 10 asset as of 2017, per their report here which directly mentions Ardor. If any other cryptocurrency is allowed to have a wikipedia page and be considered notable - then between directly being noted by the World Economic Forum and 4YFN at Mobile World Congress, this surely is notable enough. There is no place for this directly in the wikipedia article since this is more of a financial analysis, but still - it shows it is notable so I am leaving link here. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Realizing_Potential_Blockchain.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurwitz (talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note that the other cryptocurrencies you mention are not notable and are on my deletion list to be deleted in due course. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have just waded through the latest batch of "indpendent" and "reliable" sources only to find press releases, an article asking the prescient question "What are Jelurida, Ardor and Nxt?" - good question, and another bloggy piece in investing.com. No - none of this is notability.  Velella  Velella Talk 08:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide details on why these same sources are considered valid for cryptocurrencies such as NEM and Cardano? The moderators of the cryptocurrency wikipedia pages are brazenly biased if any of those pages are able to remain while you flag this one for deletion. NEM cloned their technology from NXT in 2014 and simply changed its name. - go ahead and check - all the features were copied from NXT. Cardano has nothing live yet they have a wikipedia page. This is extreme bias against the team that developed the original, operational proof of stake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurwitz (talk • contribs) 10:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The same sources are not considered valid anywhere on Wikipedia and the only reason those other articles are not being deleted right now is because the deletion process can only cope with a few at a time. Please see this list. Also I am not a moderator, nor is the nominating editor, that position does not even really exist here. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I am amazed Ethereum gets to stay posted even though Vitalik Buterin is developing Plasma network, which copies the architecture of Ardor but won't be ready for another year. Ardor is a live blockchain as a service solution. It works today. I hope to see NEM, Cardano, and many other cryptocurrencies taken down soon if you do not consider Ardor to be worthwhile. Speaking strictly from a technological perspective, it is mind blowing you would delete this given how unique and revolutionary the architecture is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurwitz (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Your list for deletion shows you allowed NEM to stay after checking. It also shows EOS was allowed to stay after checking. EOS doesn't even have a live mainnet! They are just a testnet built on top of Ethereum! As mentioned above, NEM copied NXT (Ardor's version 1.0) and just changed the name 3-4 years ago. Your bias is clearly showing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurwitz (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

And look - you even reviewed Titcoin and found it to be worthy of keeping. Seriously, what kind of review standards are you using? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurwitz (talk • contribs) 10:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The fundamental issue is that we are keeping articles based on how much notice they have got in secondary sources that meet our guidelines, not based on any technical ideas or even if they work. If the BBC or NYT (or any national mainstream media outlet) said that it's architecture is unique and revolutionary, then it would be kept, because that would show notability. Generally speaking the guideline to read is WP:CORP, and articles are reviewed mainly according to that. Titcoin seems to gathered attention for its name of all things, which has been covered by reliable sources, although the debate there is ongoing and it may not be kept. EOS.IO has a blockchain used for Everipedia and I am reluctant to nominate it mainly for that reason, although someone else may do so. Ethereum is clearly more notable that most cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin because of the widespread attention paid to it. As far as NEM (cryptocurrency) is concerned, I do not feel certain it would be deleted based on the sources I saw in my research, but again just because I won't nominate it for deletion at this point, does not mean it will not be nominated by another editor. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This is where I am saying there is bias. NEM has many of the same sources - The Merkle, CoinDesk, and even their own website are used as the main points of reference. Also CoinTelegraph, which is primarily paid content from what I know. Point me to how this is more credible than Ardor being mentioned in the World Economic Forum's 2017 report on cryptocurrency assets. The WEF noting something sounds pretty notable... The only additional reference I see on NEM is newsbtc.com and allcoinsnews.com so I added another article for Ardor from each of those sources since they are easy to come across.

Now that we are using the same exact sources, what is your reason for wanting to delete this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurwitz (talk • contribs) 12:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * All the sources here and in the NEM article are unreliable, primary, paid advertising or passing mentions. The WEF noting something is not enough and in my view does not count towards notability, newsbtc.com and allcoinsnews.com are both unreliable. The only reason I won't nominate NEM is because of this BBC article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Better to be hacked for $400 million to make BBC news than develop a unique technology that gains so much value in 1 year that it gets noted by WEF and invited to 4YFN at Mobile World Congress? Odd standard/message to push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurwitz (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you not understand what an encyclopedia is? We document things that have happened and been reported on in secondary sources and are settled. "the next big thing" will never have a place here until it has happened. Did you know we once deleted the article on the IPhone? And Mac OS? (several times). There is no secondary sourcing to support this article right now. Period. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - The Forbes sources are contributor blogs and not staff pieces, which means they are not subject to editorial oversight and are opinion rather than reporting. CoinCentral's piece finishes up with the caveat "CoinCentral's owners, writers, and/or guest post authors may or may not have a vested interest in any of the above projects and businesses." International Business Times looks like a good article, but Yahoo News is a replica of that piece. The CoinSpeaker piece is only a passing mention as is NewsBTC. The VentureBeat piece qualifies for WP:RS. Then there is a slew of sketchy looking blogs or primary sources. The International Business News and VentureBeat pieces are not enough in my opinion to assert notability on their own, and the rest aren't of any value. Isingness (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep I've added a TechCrunch mention - which is a notable site in tech and one of the most visited news sites. I removed one section with a "steemit" reference, which I find generally questionable as source (it's a self-publishing site). The World Economic Forum seems to me surely influential, reliable and independent - though it only lists Ardor as important. If push comes to shove I would suggest rather moving the text to the draft stage - as the project is young and will likely gather further sources. So maybe in draft it could get more improvements - specifically I think there are more non-notable sources that could be removed. -Thomas (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Has not received SIGCOV in RS. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete (or draftify and AfC) - mentions and coverage in non-reliable sources are not sufficient to establish notability. It seems simply WP:TOOSOON for this topic (and repeated WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are invalid for such discussions). I would support Thomas' alternative suggestion to draftify the article to improve it, when better sources become available with in-depth coverage. The entire article needs an almost complete rewrite though to remove all the trivia, irrelevant tangents, low-quality sources and non-neutral language - most of the current content is not suitable for a dispassionate non-promotional article. It should also go through AfC then to allow reviewing by an unbiased editor. GermanJoe (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP and generally WP:TOOSOON per review of available source. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.