Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burstcoin


 * 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. It is clear that this discussion has been advertised externally in an attempt to influence the outcome. In this case, the strength of the "Delete" arguments is superior to the "Keep" side, which are largely WP:PERX and vague assertions of notability without the high quality sources needed to back that up. No prejudice against the creation of an article on this topic in the future, provided it goes through WP:AFC or some other process so that the community regulars can carefully assess its notability before it hits mainspace. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Burstcoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be just another Bitcoin with very many references with not a single one adding to notability. Sure we can buy apps, see mentions and artilcles in very niche publications,read so very many press releases, get downloads from GitHub but where is notability supposed to be found ? Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 21:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been linked to on Reddit, see WTF is going on with Burst Wiki's at /r/burstcoin. Of the current keep/"Do not delete" votes, 4 out of 5 are likely the result of canvassing. 1) Jeranzarus: new account, no other edits; 2) MrPilotMan: inactive for 4 months; 3) CNaerys: new account, no other edits; 4) LinguistManiac: inactive for 5 months. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Quote: "LinguistManiac: inactive for 5 months." Hrodvarsson spreading a little fake news here aren't we? Not everyone is active just in the English Wikipedia. I find the amount and kind of superficial arguing here with "modern Wikipedians" highly disturbing. The "number of edits" and "last activity" are suddenly used as indicators for another editors credibility or competence. Hrodvarsson - You really want to go down that lane? How about we start looking at since when an editor is part of the Wikimedia family? Because if we do that, especially you - young one - look to me like a recently instantiated sockpuppet. 2017, "mostly edit biographies" ... yeah, sure. I see not a single crypto-related edit made by you, in short: not a single evidence you'd be able to participate in this discussion with anything of relevance. User:Hrodvarsson an absolute redundancy of chess players missing even the most basic WP:BIO requirements. IMHO sockpuppet trying to establish some "History" in Wikipedia. (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right that editors can be active on other projects. Looking at your global contributions, you were active on the German Wikipedia recently (after over a year of inactivity) to participate in the deletion discussion of Burstcoin there too. Regarding your comments about non-editing of crypto-related articles, it is not a requirement for someone to have edited an article to participate in its AfD discussion. For example, you have not edited any chess-related articles but were capable of nominating a chess-related article for deletion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They basically admit the lack of notability there. Some of them also show gross misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules and goals (conflict of interest editing, proposal to copy-paste later, conspiracy theory about bullying new editors etc). Retimuko (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "They"? Oh it is "us" against "them" then. How about you? Account created August, 1st 2017. Sock puppet aren't we? Show me where your self-confidence to even qualify for a discussion here comes from, because I am missing the WP:RS for it. LinguistManiac (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

(recent) NEWS ARTICLES about Burst
 * Delete fails GNG L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  22:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete an absolute tour-de-force showing how to make something out of nothing, but when it comes down to it there are no independent sources, so no notability. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete One more coin with no coverage in reliable media. Not notable. Retimuko (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I know that there are plans in the Burstcoin community to improve the wikipedia page soon. I understand that this does not address 'notability' concerns, so I tried to find sources that might. (Apologies for the sloppy referencing, it will be fixed when we update the page.)

––– Forbes article: 

––– Coincentral article 

ACADEMIC WORKS mentioning Burst

––– Mattila, J, (10.5.2016). 'The Blockchain Phenomenon – The Disruptive Potential of Distributed Consensus Architectures.' ETLA Working Papers No 38.  (Published simultaneously as a Berkeley Roundtable of the International Economy working paper).

––– Meessen, P.N. (manuscript). 'Long term data storage using peer-to-peer technology.' .

––– Armknecht, F., Bohli, J.M., Karame, G.O. and Li, W. (2017). 'Sharding PoW-based Blockchains via Proofs of Knowledge'. IACRA eprint. .

––– Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H.N. and Wang, H. (2016). 'Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey'. Work Pap.–2016. . (Cited by 24 - see here: )

––– Arredondo, A. (2018). 'Blockchain and certificate authority cryptography for an asynchronous on-line public notary system'. Doctoral dissertation – University of Texas at Austin. .

––– Hønsi, T. (2017). 'SpaceMint-A Cryptocurrency Based on Proofs of Space'. Master's thesis, NTNU. . (Cited in Bano, S., Sonnino, A., Al-Bassam, M., Azouvi, S., McCorry, P., Meiklejohn, S. and Danezis, G. (2017). 'Consensus in the Age of Blockchains'. arXiv preprint. 

Jeranzarus (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC) — Jeranzarus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete can't see any/enough indi WP:RS for GNG. Providing lots of demonstrably non-RS e.g. a research thesis (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP) are primary don't count for N and indicates an absence of RS for N. Widefox ; talk 02:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Burst is a notable coin due to the fact that it was the first cryptocurrency to implement the proof-of-capacity concensus method as well as smart contracts, a technology now used widely. It is not "just another Bitcoin" as stated, and such a statement displays a complete lack of understanding of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Burstcoin is neither a fork, or relateable to Bitcoin other than its use of blockchain.MrPilotMan (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to closer That's an assertion of notability. Note that for WP:notability we require multiple WP:RS to pass WP:GNG etc. NB this is not a WP:VOTE and non-guideline based arguments should be weighted as such. Widefox ; talk 11:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Very good observation that this is not a WP:VOTE. In this context, all deletion-votes/utterances without further evidence - I'm referring especially to the above L3X1 and Retimuko must be seen as such. You at least wrote "can't see". LinguistManiac (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to prove a negative. If an attempt to find articles in reputable media turns up virtually nothing, then I just say that there is no in-depth coverage. I see a lot of links have been dumped here since my last edit, but most of that is from a "mentioning in passing" or "obscure and unreliable sources" category. I still don't see in-depth coverage in serious sources. Retimuko (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the reasons for presumption of innocence. You must excuse, that from the view of a linguist your statements look very informal. "Reputable media", "virtually nothing", "most of that", "serious sources". At least now you have there the "I still don't see" - I can live with that. I don't see how one can't see. How the 1st German state TV is either obscure or unreliable or not reputable or not serious evades me. Having a separate box in there about Burstcoin in contrast to Bitcoin (of all the 1500+ existing currencies) when it comes to energy consumption while being a mineable coin is not just "in passing". I have intentionally presented media coverage below from at least 3 different countries (please - pretty please: tell the Swiss Basler_Zeitung it is obscure/unreliable/not serious). WP:RS talks about how context matters. In the context of the Wikipedia in its present form the norm you try to apply here "in-depth coverage in serious sources" would mean to remove at least 40% of the articles currently present in the WP. If that is the goal, so be it. LinguistManiac (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Per MrPilotMan's comments. This is a notable blockchain in its unique consensus mechanism, proof of capacity. Over time the article's subject should get some more coverage. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Per MrPilotMan, it fails notability due to lack of RS, please see WP:GNG and WP:N. Widefox ; talk 11:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with both comments above. I would also add that burst is interesting also from a historical perspective as it was created in 2014 and at the time was the first to offer solutions to solve the energy consumption problem of blockchain. As this technology becomes more and more mainstream I would argue that there will be more traffic coming to this page in the future. I also believe you can count on Burst community to maintain this page up to date. CNaerys (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC) — CNaerys (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Additionally to the issues with those !votes, "interesting" is an argument to avoid at AfD per WP:INTERESTING. Widefox ; talk 11:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, interesting is the wrong verb in this context. I meant "useful" from a historical point of view CNaerys (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC).
 * I agree that it's a shame that the INTERESTING technology is not covered yet in depth good enough for us to include, it's a case of WP:RECENTISM/WP:TOOSOON with a lack of quality WP:SECONDARY sources in a field that's exploding in different ways. We must be true to our standards as readers rely on us, but poor sourcing just doesn't pass GNG. We need quality sources with proven editorial standards (fact checking etc), and not PRIMARY close to the event. That rules out all these new techs apart from those with substantial coverage like bitcoin, Etherium etc. There is discussion about enforcing our standards as there's much enthusiasm for creating all these cryptocurrency articles that aren't backed by good enough sources. Widefox ; talk 15:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable mentions in the press and TV:

––– ARD Börsenmagazin (the finance section of ARD – the first state television in Germany – mentioned Burst as an alternative to Bitcoin) 

––– PC Magazin (German PC magazine) 

––– Basler Zeitung (Swiss Newspaper) <https://bazonline.ch/wirtschaft/stromfresser-bitcoin/story/27178604>

––– HP De Tijd (Dutch magazine - “one of the four most influential Dutch opinion magazines” according to WP) <https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2017-10-22/bitcoins-verantwoorde-belegger/>

Wikipedia itself keeps Burstcoin as one of the coins in the cryptocurrencies category, the single existing cryptocurrency using Proof of Capacity / Proof of Space. This is not "Just another Bitcoin", this is a unique, old cryptocurrency. Deletion of this article means WP can carve out all material about Proof of Space, including the research papers that also happen to mention Burstcoin (see refs brought up by Jeranzarus)


 * Also please allow me a personal remark as someone who has been contributing to several Wikimedia projects since 2002. While I think that Special:WhatLinksHere/Burstcoin and the references section should be self-explanatory: If it is consensus in the "new Wikipedia", to remove information of notable interest, then so be it. However, you will not be able to undo the fact, that Burstcoin had the first smart contract system and the first inter-currency ACCT Smart_contract. Even if Burstcoin ceased to exist, this information alone would justify presence of it in the WP. I can fully understand the need to keep WP free from cruft (Titcoin, Peercoin - which is not tagged for deletion consideration, NuBits - seriously), but this discussion is a premier example in autoimmune disease of the WP project. LinguistManiac (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * >"Wikipedia itself keeps Burstcoin as one of the coins in the cryptocurrencies category"
 * Who is "Wikipedia itself"? Editors (like you and me) just did not object to keeping it there since the article still exists. This is an "other stuff exists" type of argument. Retimuko (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly. "Wikipedia itself" is Editors like you and me. And I intentionally presented the category box so "you can see" the unique position Burstcoin has. This category box was visible far beyond the scope of just the Burstcoin article for a very long time with no objections, no undo/edit war history. A given. And now you come along and say this is nothing. You must excuse if I consider the value system you use for your arguments to be very ... flexible. LinguistManiac (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Come on! You claim to have been around since 2002. You should know the rules better than this. The age of something is not an indication that it complies with the policy. This is an "other stuff exists" kind of argument. Let's consider the question at hand: is Burstcoin notable or not. So far I have seen very poor sources, and no in-depth coverage in mainstream media. If you can show otherwise, I will reconsider. Retimuko (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Correct: Come on! Suddenly the age is not an indication, because it suits you my fellow young Wikipedian. But - see above - the number of edits is? The time since last activity is? I suggest you young ones study Notability again, and in depth. "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article" observe the words no and the words should. You do have a position in stark contrast to that. Because you - allegedly - misunderstood that sentence for "If very poor third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it must not have a separate article". At least this is how you behave in this discussion. Your qualification of the 3rd party sources is highly debatable. I consider the Forbes article quite in-depth and there are other articles, in other languages (not sure you were able to research them) I have presented that are all pretty in-depth, especially when it comes to energy requirements. I do know the rules better. WP:IS You build up the illusion "in-depth coverage in mainstream media" being required. Read the guidelines again. The problem is, that you just keep saying "I have seen very poor sources" no matter what. Then explain yourself (and this is not about proving a negative), or it is not worth the effort to point you - once again - to these sources. https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/528.pdf - third party, independent, reliable (peer reviewed). Burst complete appendix B, and comparison to SpaceMint, because the only existing Proof-of-Capacity coin. And SpaceMint does not even exist to present day. What is "very poor" about this source: https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/bitcoin-stromverbrauch-101.html ? Please explain rather than just making the claim. The way you - and Hrodvarsson put things, Wikipedia would be in the pervert situation to delete the Burstcoin article and add e.g. a Chia article instead, because the guy who does (rather: intends to do) Chia had some fame to start with and when he presented his intentions quite some media reported about this. So Wikipedia would have an article about something non-existing and instead kicked out something real-existing (and unique and significant), but you would be presumably satisfied, because there would be a lot of "independent 3rd-party sources". I am around since 2002 and I do have enough "Thank you" letters form the Wikimedia Foundation in my office. And yes, I do get slightly angry how "you youngsters" fuck Wikipedia up. With you having only best intentions of course. LinguistManiac (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not referring to Retimuko as a "monster" as you put it... I'm expecting that this discussion remains civil and free from personal attacks; please do not engage in making them (if this is what you were doing). Keep calm, keep cool, keep civil - and discuss things peacefully :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? "Monster"? I see no other mention of that term until you brought it up. Please do not make allegations of personal attacks. I do consider - after some research - users Retimuko and Hrodvarsson as sock puppets (no offense, just stating results of my research). But I might be wrong and them are just new Wikipedians trying to get some merits here. Nothing wrong with that. I certainly do not want to "Bite the Newbies", but I do feel the need to decidedly refute "ignorant biting" done by the newbies. Peace. (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge with proof-of-space — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.0.221 (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete It is unique in that it uses disk space as the mining resource, but it is does not meet the notability guidelines. It could be merged to proof-of-space but a merge vote would imply that the content currently on this article to a significant extent should be moved over, which should not happen as this article is a total mess. Deleting this article and adding a couple lines at proof-of-space is enough. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a revolutionary cryptocurrency with x500 Energy Efficient than Bitcoin, using free hard disk capacity. It's the future of Blockchain Technology. User:baybil —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)  — baybil (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

––– "[...] Of the current keep/"Do not delete" votes, 4 out of 5 are likely the result of canvassing.", Hrodvarsson. You fails at WP:AGF and at WP:NPA.
 * Note:

––– "[...] an absolute tour-de-force", Smallbones. You fails at WP:NPOV.

––– "One more coin [...]", Retimuko. You fails at WP:NPOV.

––– "[...] as this article is a total mess.", Hrodvarsson. You fails at WP:NPOV.

––– "I do consider - after some research - users Retimuko and Hrodvarsson as sock puppets", LinguistManiac, You fails at WP:AGF and at WP:NPA.

I know that it is important to some people to delete or to keep this article, but everyone must respect the following policies (even if the policies were "designed" for articles) while writing comments/informations : WP:NPOV, WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:CIV. Also always remember : "facts before opinions". Umbrellacorp03 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Another bitcoin clone with no decent available sources (the best I found was this one), accompanied by an army of socks desperate to save it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete lots of hype and references to promotional sources, basically no sourcing in reliable secondary sources. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:51, 25 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.