Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonchain (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. Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

exclusively bad sourcing, these do not establish notability. mostly churnalism. The most reputable are also not sufficient: The Forbes source is written by staff, but it is a list of 50 different projects, with just a single sentence for each of them. There is no original research, that can't have been the case if the "article" covers 50 projects. The Fortune article is not primarily covering Dragonchain, it is just a shout-out; and there is no citable info, the blurb does not establish notability. The Bloomberg source is a reprint from BusinessWire, which is simply printing whatever companies would like them to. This is not considered a reliable source elsewhere, we have had many examples of this. The article implies that it is written by Vision Tree Media which seems to have been contracted to do various PR projects for Dragonchain. Ysangkok (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. The recreation after the previous AFD was literally the same text, and should really have been deleted immediately, or never been created. The current version is much longer, but is of no more substance - this is ridiculously promotional, and the scanty RS coverage is passing mentions at best. WP:BEFORE shows press releases, stuff from their ICO, and passing mentions. If this is kept, it would need to be cut to about two lines - David Gerard (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The main author is now WP:REFBOMBing the article with dubious passing mentions that don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. In agreement that the page needs work. Disagreed on 'exclusively' bad sourcing, however the unreliable sources mentioned can and should be removed at any time rather than deleting an entire page. Disagreed that the page content is the same as the previous AFD. The previous AFD was a terrible piece focused on token shilling and price speculation. Per Wikipedia's Alternatives to Deletion policies; If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. David Gerard seems to be in agreement that the page can be kept, though we are not in agreement that it would need to be 'cut to about two lines'. Ysangkok seems to be in agreement there are sources that should be removed, though not every source referenced in the page can be disputed like that and claims made towards Vision Tree are speculative. As far as I know Vision Tree is the producer of the documentary that aired on Discovery Science Channel, but I am not opposed to removing inappropriate references or sources from the page. Suggest to further discuss in the talk page, make edits where needed, and if that doesn't work, to follow the normal protocol we have available at dispute resolution. Last but not least, to anyone following the Dragonchain page, my strong advice is to improve that page to meet the Wikipedia standards and to address the valid concerns expressed here. JeffreyDutch (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think that's a "keep" from me, then you are not good at judging the opinions of other editors, to a degree that you should probably stop trying to. Do you have RSes that meet WP:NCORP for the article? - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * e.g., you just claimed that a report that says on the cover it's from Accenture is not from Accenture - David Gerard (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article can be improved, no debate there from my end. Accenture is not involved or mentioned anywhere in the World Economic Forum report. The World Economic Forum collaborated with Deloitte, but it certainly is not a marketing document from Accenture. The report is the result of more than 200 expert interviews and nine international workshops over the past year as part of the Forum’s AI in Financial Services project. JeffreyDutch (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you just added a reference to a piece on The Next Web which only mentions Dragonchain in the quote "The user uploaded the tweet and its URL to Dragonchain, a web app that claims to timestamp tweets to blockchains such as Ethereum. The tweet can be viewed on the blockchain here.". That is not independent journalism, it is just a shoutout. It is unusable as a reference. The author even distanced themselves from the fact that Dragonchain actually timestamped anything by using "claims"! --Ysangkok (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverted the reference from The Next Web per your feedback. JeffreyDutch (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep because open sourced from the Walt Disney Company. Regarding Open Source Money, that 5-episode long documentary already aired on Discovery Science Channel in the United States, unclear to me why some notable sources have been removed and now only a press release from Raiinmaker(?) is left? JeffreyDutch (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Horrible article. Maybe after TNT rewrite using only high quality RSs (if available) I may change my mind, but the article in its current state is not suitable for an encyclopedia (fails GNG, ad-like language, inline external promo links etc.). Pavlor (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel this one is notable. It has coverage in Inc, Yahoo and number of other publications. I agree that there are lot's of content that is unsourced and the article needs some work. I also see some press releases used. I am considering removing most sections that are unsourced, but need to review and research further. However, I also feel it's relation to Disney and how it started out by them, makes it notable as well.Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability is not established based on whether you think the subject was funded by a company you consider significant. Your comment doesn't address the issue of bad sourcing. Just because sources were funded by Disney doesn't mean they are well-researched or in-depth. I refer to CORPDEPTH linked by David Gerard above. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep but Improve The subject is clearly notable for all the reasons mentioned above. Blockchain technology is world-changing technology that is going to continually evolve. While it's in its infancy still, with few among the general public well-informed (or informed at all) on the topic, this will change quickly. Many fortune 100 companies are heavily invested in blockchain technology with many different coins and platforms right now.  The fact that this was started by Disney is a strong nod to notability.  While there is likely to be a consolidation of blockchain platforms and associated coins in the future, the individual unique platforms are laying the groundwork now, and are therefore notable and important.  I don't feel that this violates GNG or is ad-like in nature. While the citations are not written in the proper format, that is easily fixable.K67 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Blockchain is notable, so we have an article on blockchain; but that doesn't mean something else is notable because it's a blockchain. Your reasoning is not policy-based. How does the article meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH? - David Gerard (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dragonchain is notable enough to carry this page. Not because it is just a blockchain, but because it is a blockchain open sourced from the Walt Disney Company. JeffreyDutch (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt Once you get past the horrible sources, bad unsourced writing, and hyperbolic stuff about blockchain technology being "world-changing" (which might or might not be true, but it doesn't automatically mean this implementation of it is anyway), then all your left with is a pretty routine article about yet another run of the mill blockchain thing, that is essentially no different the article that was already delete. So, there's zero reason to keep this. The claim that this is somehow drastically different enough to justify recreation is ridiculous. It just uses way buzz words then the original article. That's it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have done major cleanup on this article, probably over 25% unsourced content removed, so it looks much better now. Removed press releases and self sourced material. And also found 3 new sources in Business Insider, Nasdaq.com and siliconangel.com. Also, note that2 of the new sources that I found is about their TV documentary. All past voters, should revisit their votes.Expertwikiguy (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The "NASDAQ" article is a CoinDesk reprint, and it's still generally unreliable even if reprinted. I see there's also a Medium post from "Crypto Dragon" being used as a source. This is not a competent approach to referencing a Wikipedia article. Having looked at the changes, delete and salt - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As pointed out, these minor things are easily fixable and it seems there has been made a lot more edits and removal of notable content meeting WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH already than I personally would agree with. JeffreyDutch (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per reasons above and clean-up done by Expertwikiguy. Article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Keep per reasons above" is something you can paste all over AfD's that have at least one Keep vote. You claim it is good enough to pass NCORP, but why? What makes it pass NCORP? Your arguments are applicable to any AfD concerning a corporation, they do not show you did any effort. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Opinions without reasoning aren't opinions. This is not a ballot - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I usually don't reply to rebuttals like this, but this honestly got me triggered. First, I KNOW that this is not a ballot. Second, there are some users in certain AfDs who say Delete: per nom and Keep: per above or certain user because, IMV, they agree with or have the same views as either of them. IMO, I'm satisfied with Expertwikiguy's improvement on the article and I agree with his, JeffreyDutch's and K67's arguments. That's why my keep stands. Therefore, there's really nothing wrong with agreeing with someone's views on why a certain article should be kept, deleted or merge. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply from hereon. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 11:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Even Expertwikiguy removed way more than needed, if anything there is stuff to recover, definitely not delete. JeffreyDutch (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete An examination of the references (ignoring the primary sources and clearly marked Business Wire announcements) shows the following:
 * This from Business Insider discusses how Disney originally developed the technology and how some of their developers are looking for funding to continue. A reading of the article makes it clear that it is based on an interview with Joe Roets, the CEO of Dragonchain Inc. As per WP:ORGIND, a reference must have "Independent Content" which is defined as follows: . There is nothing in the article that is clearly unattributable to company sources, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from Inc.com] from 2017 says that the author interviews Roets from the article. This article also fall short of "Independent Content". Facts/opinions/analysis/etc on the topic company are invariably attributed to company sources. This article also fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from Orlando Politics (assuming it is a reliable source) is a mention-in-passing with a quotation from the CEO with no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This from BizJournals is also a mention-in-passing with no in-depth information on the company, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * Thie from InfoWorld from 2016 makes no mention of the topic company but provides a description of the blockchain technology (which is not the topic of the article here at AfD). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This from GeekWire discusses the company's business three core business arms and the future of the company and is based on a talk and information provided by the CEO. While it contains good details, it is clear that all of the information on the company was provided by the CEO and there is no evidence of "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from Enterprise Times is entirely based on a company announcement even including word-for-word some descriptions and quotes, fails ORGIND.
 * This from 425Business is an announcement of a local award (Eastside Small Business of the Year) and relies entirely on information/interview provided by company sources, fails ORGIND
 * This from SeattleBusiness "Tech Impact" awards lists the company as an award winner. It is a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The award is not a major award and does not confer automatic notability.
 * This from Silicon Angle discusses a documentary series which will follow the CEO/founder of the company (and other entrepreneurs) who have faced resistence from regulators to Blockchain technology. The article provides no details on the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
 * This also from Silicon Angle is entirely based on this PR company announcement, fails ORGIND
 * I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability wise (and just logically anyway) this is all over the place. The argument that it is notable because it was created by Disney seems even more tenuous given the (unverifiable) claim in the intro that Dragonchain is no longer associated with Disney. If Disney, of all conglomerates, allegedly gave up total control of the project, that would make it even less than non-notable in my mind. The other, more important thing, is Dragonchain even a blockchain? I'd like verifiable sources on that fact first, some of the statements in the article and in the dubious source material is totally contradictory to the basic principles of blockchain tech. "Each application or node is its own blockchain." Yeah, ok. By that logic my thermostat is its own blockchain. From Inc.com source : "...we are able to leverage AWS for scale." That sounds very not-blockchain to me. Lastly, why is Dragonchain listed in the cryptocurrency template as an ERC-20 token? If its notability peaks at having an Ethereum token... clearly delete. My point is, it's not clear whether Dragonchain is really a "blockchain" or just a data center with extra steps, so saying the article is notable because it is blockchain also needs verifiable sources to be backed up. On top of that the tone jumps out as a desperate sales pitch. hidden lemon (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per HighKing. A lot of hype sourced to press releases, but no substantial independent coverage. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NCORP as well as WP:ORGIND (#Independent sources) and WP:CORPDEPTH (#Significant coverage). Notability is not not inherited so attempts to tie this to Disney for notability is vain and fails WP:INHERITORG. What I do see is promotionism not only on this non-mined cryptocurrency but as a whole in some attempt to list all 1600+ cryptocurrencies on Wikipedia as being notable simply because they exist with mostly primary sources and some passing mention in reliable sources. Where is the bottom limit on notability? This is established GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. I do not see that criteria being met. Otr500 (talk) 12:02, 17 November 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.