Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ark Ecosystem


 * 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. Consensus is this lacks sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 08:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Ark Ecosystem

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be just another crypto currency articles. The sourcing gives no evidence of notability. Much seems to be own web-site and blogs, press releases and linkedin. Nothing here hints at notability. Fails WP:GNG and appears to be an advertising puff piece  Velella  Velella Talk 14:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 18:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

WHY ARK SHOULD BE LISTED ON WIKIPEDIA FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE:

- The article is TOTALLY UNBIASED. The technological discussion and history are factual and (almost) entirely sourced (and certainly accurate). - At this point Ark is a top 30 cryptocurrency, making it a $350 million company. - It has official legal residence in France. - Its founders have worked for the EU and countless multinationals. - The company is developing unique technology. - At this point several dozen cryptocurrencies are listed on Wikipedia, including ones around the same height as Ark and even ones MUCH lower: Lisk, IOTA, Stratis, Waves and even Dogecoin, Vertcoin, Namecoin, Gridcoin, etc. So why should Ark be removed when these are untouched?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptocurrencies

- The complainer, Velella, earlier wholesale removed portions of the article I had written, including ones as unbiased as possible. - Who says competitors and investors aren't unbiased and are trying to get Ark's page removed? - There's no rule on Wikipedia that says only top 10 or top 20 coins can be listed. - As long as the info is factual, certainly the listing of top 50 coins shouldn't be an issue. - The mainstream media shouldn't be a be all, end all criteria for legitimate young/start up projects.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by FixXxer1865 (talk • contribs) — FixXxer1865 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I am not the complainer, I am simply an editor who cannot see notability in the article or find it in searches about the article's subject. I did indeed remove a swathe of unsourced content which made it look even more promotional and less worth saving. I was attempting to salvage something of note. However, it was not to be. Nothing added since has provided any significant evidence of notability.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ANSWER: The facts I mention speak for themselves and address your complaints - and then some. If you delete Ark, also delete 80% of the coins listed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptocurrencies

Where do you draw the line? Top 100? Top 50? Top 10? IOTA is in the top 10 now I assume. Hardly ever an article written about - if ever - and pretty questionable leadership. Still on Wikipedia.

A registered (in France no less instead of Switzerland or an off-shore) $350 million start-up company with very legitimate leadership and about which tens of thousands of people are looking for information deserves to be on Wikipedia, certainly while it is getting worth more and more and more. If it crashes and burns, or looks inactive, or has shady characters involved, it is an entirely different matter. Then it can always be deleted.

Also added all possible competition as far as they are listed on Wikipedia, so people can compare features. I don't work for Ark. And I got just as much interest in the competition - at various times. I'm a hobbyist who enjoys studying cryptos.

You're trying to win an argument purely for the sake of winning. Not on consistency or reason.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FixXxer1865 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment If this cryptocurrency is so big, it shouldn´t be hard to provide some reliable sources. FixXxer1865, could you list 2 to 3 sources you think are best (broad coverage, solid publisher etc.)? Pavlor (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Only source I can find is - - which appears of marginal reliability and is not enough to pass WP:GNG. If it is notable, there should be articles on it. Other cryptocurrencies existing is not a valid argument. Not only that, the others I do see have articles in sources like Wired. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC) To add, FixXxer1865, Independent and reliable sources are needed - and that's the only I could find. Press releases, blogs, their website, linkedin - not valid sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Responding to some of the points made by the article creator above: a company being registered in any particular country is not in itself a sign of notability, nor are the past business careers of those involved (WP:NOTINHERITED). Nor do start-ups obtain any waiver of normal requirements for reliable 3rd party sources to establish notability for a company or product. Rather than taking a punt that unique technology under development may ensure its success, attained notability needs to be demonstrated. I agree with the original nomination that the sources provided in the article are not adequate, and I am not finding better. It is clear from the announcements that development is progressing, but at this time neither company or product notability is established. AllyD (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * DeleteBut with not prejudice against recreation if new sources turn up. The closest the article gets to an independent source is FutureTechPodcast which isn't really enough to assert notability on its own.©Geni (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I searched for more sources and removed a lot of questionable content. Not sure if that helps. Not too experienced with wikipedia yet.©Jarunik (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The main point of this discussion is to show notability. This generally requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Adding sources is therefore useful but looking at the sources, they're all press releases, and therefore straight from the company rather than independent. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Added two references. First princeton listing ark as partner. plus a research based on Ark technology . That should increase the notability a little hopefully.Jarunik (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The first one doesn't mean much - just means they've paid money to be a sponsor. The second is not published yet and only talks about the technology - this is about the company. If you can find more sources then ARK Blockchain can be created. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Many Arguments on why have already been posted by others above. The fact that it is the first cryptocurrency to be registered as a legal company in France hints that it may be worth being mentioned. Yes, the fact that company is registered in some country is not worth being mentioned in it self. But "first" and "cryptocurrency" are the keywords here. Also the Delegated-Proof-of-Stake concept is of interest as it covers e.G. Bitcoins Energy problem which is talked a lot of right now. From this aspect ARK is much more interesting tech then many of the CloneCoins which do have it's own article here. So although it might look like just another cryptocurrency it has something to it. The article is not optimal right now, but nevertheless I vote for keep. It can grow. Conflict of Interest Statement: I am not associated with ARK Ecosystem or personell of the legal entity or the developers in any way, I do not own or trade ARKs and have no Wallet. Soulman (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2017 (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.