Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aventus Protocol


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | [spill the beans] || 06:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Aventus Protocol

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

notability not established, this project was covered only on launch in reputable media while blockchain was really hyped (2015). the project has stalled, notice how e.g. the documentation on the website is "coming soon", 5 years after launch. this is yet another blockchain vaporware product that was never notable in the first place, and was only covered in reputable media because of the hype. "the times of london" covered this because it is a london-based project. "imperial college london" is also biased, because that is where the founders met. this could be a list item in a list of defunct blockchain applications. Ysangkok (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as has significant coverage in The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Times already in the article. These aren't London publications they're national even international publications, "The Times of London" is just a name, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * how is the coverage from The Guardian "in depth" as required by WP:CORPDEPTH? They don't explain anything about how it works, and they hint at invalid implications like "The Aventus Protocol is based on blockchain technology – used in cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin – which would allow event organisers to give each ticket a unique identity that is tied to its owner. Because the tickets are based on blockchain – a linked list of records where each new one contains an encrypted version of the previous one – they cannot be faked."
 * Blockchain does not need encryption, that is the first problem with that snippet. Another problem is that it sounds like you can't guarantee authenticity of a ticket without blockchain, also false. Also, it sounds like blockchain is the only way to assign "a unique identity" to an owner, neglecting to mention that it is asymmetric cryptography makes that possible.
 * The rest of the article is useless propping up like mentioning their credentials. This is not what you'd call in-depth, I think. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree, it is significant coverage about how the company was created and we don't need to know the details of how it works as "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide". Your disagreement with the technical aspects reported does not change the fact that it is a reliable source and they do make corrections so I suggest you contact the Guardian with your concerns, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Per Atlantic306. It has received some coverage on the internet. It's also discussed in a portion of a book. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm generally sympathetic to the delete rationale. Underdocumented blockchain enterprises are a hygiene risk for Wikipedia and I'm generally minded to give them a higher bar to pass at AfD, and the three newspaper stories all relate to the launch of the company and so they do not provide a basis for a balanced article. The offering at their Github page is slight, much slighter than one would expect for an organisation that has had four years and over 20 million UKP to work with . That said, I did find two later academic articles that mention the protocol, so it is possible that something more substantial can be said. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per . 's findings are also encouraging. To the noms initial points, WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ~Kvng (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Insufficiently wide coverage for the topic. I don't think the coverage in reliable sources gives us a basis for balanced coverage of this topic, and I'm especially bothered by this when it comes to the space of topics that might be subject to blockchain enterprise boosterism. The coverage in the 3 (PR depth) newspaper articles and 2 (more interesting) academic articles attests that the general application domain, new ticketing technologies, is interesting, but in the absence of more meaty coverage, I think we are better off without this content. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how this meets NCORP. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:01, 4 October 2020 (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.