Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blockstack (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No prejudice to starting an article about the technology, if sufficient independent sources treating the subject in-depth exist. Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Blockstack
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I closed AFD1 as delete but further sourcing has been provided that was not discussed in the first debate. I also realised that i had not noticed one user voting delete twice. As a result I am relisting in a clean discussion. The provided sources are:


 * 1) George Gilder's latest book Life After Google has Blockstack as a major subject. There is an entire chapter dedicated to it and Blockstack is mentioned throughout the book. Here are two screenshots of the book: source 1 and source 2. George Gilder is not affiliated with the Blockstack project.
 * 2) The HBO Silicon Valley Show season 5 is inspired by the Blockstack project (source) and the co-founders of Blockstack Muneeb Ali and Ryan Shea served as technical advisors to the show and got screen credit (source). The first source is based on an interview so might not qualify but the second source is independent (screen credits are public information anyway). Journalists have independently linked Blockstack to the HBO show even before their involvement with the show became public (source from 2017 before the season 5 came out).
 * 3) An independent study on internet freedom and new internet architectures by MIT that covered Blockstack (source).
 * 4) South China Morning Post published an article on Blockstack and the browser. The article features an open-source developer living in Hong Kong that contributes to the project (and not any officers of Blockstack Public Benefit Corp, the NY entity) (source).
 * 5) There are many other independent sources e.g., the Economist 1, the Economist 2, Techcrunch, VentureBeat (these don't include comments by Blockstack Public Benefit Corp officers). Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * generally the presumption is that the nominator is a vote for delete. However, in this case you are re-nominating as a previous closer. Just for the record could you please vote on this? (or if you are neutral, please state that as well) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral..Spartaz Humbug! 21:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I also noticed TechCrunch source here and a Forbes Staff writer source here  and a Tedx talk here . For me this is probably enough. I see this entity has been around since 2014, far longer than the average tech funded startup and continues to get mainstream business press. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I noticed this list of additional sources (available on Github) as well. Freedaemon (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC) — Freedaemon (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As there must have been an original delete. As I'm unsure whether previous participants were courtesy pinged to contribute to an AfD I shall do so now

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Courtesy Ping - As this is, in effect, an AfD that was reopened as ongoing, I feel it's appropriate that the previous members have their attention specifically called to it. . There was a personal attack by an editor towards another in the original AfD. Please do not repeat this if you participate in this AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete (with apologies for !voting Delete twice in the last AfD!).
 * It is true that George Gilder's latest book Life After Google has a chapter entitled "Blockstack" but this isn't a chapter on the company. Instead it is a chapter where he discusses at length and with a lot of detail the background to the invention of Blockstack's technology but doesn't provide any details on the company. In chapter 15, he does provide some snippets in relation to the company especially when discussing Ali's or Shea's background but it is clear from this chapter that he is relying on being provided the story by Ali and Shea. He also described how on July 27 2017 he "traveled west to see how the Blockstack people were doing and perhapd help them with a speech" and how Blockstack's "marketing chief, Patrick Stanley, asked me to speak on "Life after Google" at the 2017 Blockstack summit. Which he did. Gilder has also spoken at the 2018 summit. The question on whether Gilder is an unconnected person (just a big fan of the technology and not necessarily the company) or whether he should be considered a connected person (speaking at events to promote his book which means he benefits from promoting Blockstack) is a really fine line. But for me it is clear. While his book does discuss the technology in detail, it does not discuss *the company* in any significant way therefore fails WP:SIGCOV. A link to the book can also be found on Google Books here.
 * Since the fortune.com reference for the HBO show relies on interviews with Ali and Shea, it fails as it is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND since Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The other reference is a tweet from a random source. The final observer.com reference fails for the exact same reasons as the fortune.com reference.
 * The essay published by those authors has nothing to say about the company (the subject of this article). If the topic of this article was the technology (hint hint) and not the company then it may be a good source to establish notability - but it isn't. As it is, this reference does nothing to establish the notability of the company.
 * The South China Morning Port article is written by a Blockstack opensource contributer but says nothing about the company (the subject of this article). It does nothing to establish the notability of the company.
 * As to the other references. This economist reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the same as this economist reference. Same problem with the TechCrunch article - nothing about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, the VentureBeat reference relies on a company announcement and Ali's "five traits" and fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. I've no intention of commenting on each reference on GitHub but to say that every one I looked at that discusses the company was not intellectually independent and failed ORGIND.
 * The other sprinkling of other sources also fail. This TechCrunch reference relies on a company announcement and fails ORGIND. This Forbes piece is on the "sites" and fails WP:RS (lots of discussions to this effect on the RS noticeboard]. The TedX reference is a talk by Ali and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * In general, the Keep !voters above are failing to understand that the subject of this article is the company (not the technology) and therefore the references must establish the notability of the company. Most references discuss the technology in-depth. As it currently stands, the article attempts to appear as an article on the technology but it is clearly a thin disguise on a corporate article. If someone should like to write an article on the technology, this is not the place to start. The other aspect is that the Keep !voters are failing to provide references that are "intellectually independent", that is the references "must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". My !vote remains to Delete.  HighKing++ 16:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Your main objection seems to be the difference between a company/project and technology. Given this is open-source software that line is blurry. The article cannot be just about the open-source project/company or about the technology, they're inter-related and both should be covered. As currently written the "Corporate backing" section of the article covers Blockstack Public Benefit Corp more explicitly and should be improved/edited so that only that section discusses the company. If people disagree that "the company" should be separated from the technology then we'd end up having a very different discussion. Currently, my understanding is that both the company and the technology are the subject of this article and most sources confirm that assumption as most sources refer to both the company/project and the technology.


 * George Gilder read a publicly-available PhD thesis and based his research for the book on that publicly available information. Yes, he gave a talk at a summit but saying that he is affiliated with the project is inaccurate and a long stretch. Edward Snowden also gave a talk at the Blockstack summit, does it make Edward Snowden affiliated with the project? No. The book actually discusses the funding of the Public Benefit Corp as well and discusses the technology and company interchangeably. So the question here is about (a) source being significant and (b) source being independent, and both are true in my view.


 * RE the HBO show, at a recent Decentralized Web Summit event the producers of the HBO show themselves confirmed that Season 5 was based on Blockstack and MaidSafe, there is a publicly available recording of that available (source). Further, anyone can watch the screen credits of the HBO show to confirm the "tweet image" of the credits, it's public information and you're not relying on a tweet.


 * The MIT report explicitly mentions the project e.g., on page 51 "Blockstack is an open source project whose goal is to make". As with the Gilder book, both the company/project and the technology is the subject of this source and, similar to the Gilder book, they are often used interchangeably e.g., on page 45 "Blockstack is implementing an alternative to the current DNS/URL naming framework" uses "Blockstack" to refer to Blockstack Public Benefit Corp while later in the report they use the term to refer to the technology.


 * The South China Morning Port article is NOT written by a Blockstack opensource contributor. The article is written by a Hong Kong-based journalist Harminder Singh. The opensource contributor is featured in the article (he didn't write the article). As with other sources, both the company/project and the technology are the subject. The line "The project has been in development, primarily in the United States, since 2013 and is entering a stage where people can begin using it" refers to the company/project and "Blockstack is a decentralized internet where users keep their data locally" refers to the technology. No Blockstack PBC sources are quoted in the article and the article qualifies the independence and significance check.


 * In summary, the line between Blockstack company/project and technology is blurry and almost all the sources mention both. Question to ask here is "Is Blockstack company/project/technology significant?" And the clear answer is yes. Just the book and HBO show should be enough for this but there are like more than 100 independent additional sources that are not even being discussed here. Freedaemon (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Response Your responses indicate that you are not clear on the difference between a source that is used to establish notability and a source that may be used to support an assertion within the article itself. All sources used for the former purpose may also be used for the latter, but not vice versa. Also, you raise a good point - it is unclear whether this article is primarily about the company or the technology. From my reading of it, I assume it is the company. I would also state that I believe an article on the Blockstack technology would certainly meet the criteria for notability. Perhaps if the article was editted to make this fact clear?
 * George Gilder's book goes into some detail on the contact he had with the founders and the company and various company officials. You're not accurately portraying his connection by stating that he only read a thesis and gave a talk. Your strawman about Snowden isn't relevant. The book does not discuss the company and the technology interchangeably in my opinion either - the book traces the technology and the company being formed is a separate episode in the technology coming to market. His book is very clear on which is which.
 * The sources provided on the HBO show are a good example of what I mean about the difference between sources to support an assertion in the article (the interview is OK for this purpose) and sources to establish notability (this fails ORGIND). A tweet wouldn't be acceptable for either. I'm not disputing the *fact*, I'm saying that the source fails the criteria for establishing notability.
 * I don't understand what you are implying. Are you saying that the project is the same thing as the company? That isn't my understanding.... Also, given that the MIT report is focused on the technology and not the company, a mere mention-in-passing of the company (if that's what you say it is) fails WP:CORPDEPTH (if the article is about the company ... which it is).
 * My bad, I meant to say that the article relies extensively on a Blockstack contributer and fails since it is not "intellectually independent" and fails WP:ORGIND - Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
 * In summary, I'm convinced that if this article is changed so that it is about the technology, it will pass GNG without a problem. I don't believe the current article is the correct starting point though.  HighKing++ 20:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Response Thanks for the comments about notability vs supporting an assertion, I'll try to read more about it. I 100% agree that the article should be changed and should be primarily about the technology (with the "Corporate backing" section having a small discussion about the company). I did some research on Github and pulled data on software releases etc and (a) changed the infobox to software from company (this was there is an earlier edit as well) and (b) updated the first paragraph to better reflect what the software platform provides. I need to go and run some errands, I plan to make a second round of edits tomorrow; the article right now doesn't reflect the state of the technology correctly. Let me know if you have other suggestions for improving the article. Freedaemon (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Question - Leaning weak keep, since there's enough above to satisfy WP:GNG, I think. But I don't know why an article about Blockstack must be only about the company and not about the technology such that in-depth sources on the latter should be disqualified. Do we already have an article on that somewhere? This article says it's about a "network," not just the business behind that network, no? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Response There is no separate article on the network/technology. The current article is covering both and my recent research and edits made the article primarily about the network/technology with some discussion of Blockstack PBC. I agree with you that the article should cover both. This open-source technology is in a similar situation as Apache Spark and Ethereum and in those cases the articles primarily cover the technology and mention the respective companies, Data Bricks and Ethereum Foundation, in passing (which I agree with). Freedaemon (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Significant RS coverage of the company not found. What comes are is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Guylepage3 with few other contributions outside this topic. With $4M in venture funding and per review of available sources, it's clearly WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Sources offered abobe do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP, resulting in a promotional article. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Response This looks like the same comment you made in the 1st nomination; the article has evolved since then and a list of new sources are now under discussion. Can you kindly comment on the discussion above RE the article primarily being about the technology and not the company? Thanks a lot, Freedaemon (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete For the reasons already given by others. I'm just adding that the user who created the article has a declared conflict of interest.  looks like connected too, since he has no other contribution since 2011, until he jumped to edit this article 24 minutes after its creation. --MarioGom (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Response I'm a user of the technology and a fan of the Silicon Valley show. I got involved in this discussion when I noticed that the entry was deleted and I wanted to add the Silicon Valley show info to it (I mentioned all of this in my original discussion to re-list). I'm not an experienced wikipedia user/editor and would defer to you guys for making a fair call here. I don't think any of Guylepage3's content is on the article anymore. There are new sources (like the Gilder book, MIT report, South China article etc) that were not considered earlier and are still not being discussed really. I'm going to stop defending this article now and let you, the more experienced editors, take it from here; I've spent a surprisingly large amount of time on this discussion this week. My only request would be to evaluate the project/technology as it exists today; in my humble view, it's an extremely important technology. Thanks for taking the time to read! Freedaemon (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 12 August 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.