Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethereum


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Valoem   talk   contrib  20:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ethereum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about a non-notable platform for a non-notable altcoin without it's article. Citing my usual WP:GNG, WP:PROMO argument as I've made with many of these other coins. Citation Needed &#x007C;  Talk  00:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Ethereum is not just another alt-coin, but an important attempt to create a new platform. It is notable, as evidenced by the citations and attention throughout the cryptocurency community, and if you'll read the article, you'll see that articles critical of Ethereum are included as well, so it's hard to argue WP:PROMO. Sanpitch (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In any of the articles I see that come from reliable sources, only one makes more than a mention. The rest are questionable and can be considered unreliable. Citation Needed  &#x007C;  Talk  12:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two wired articles and an Al Jazeera article focused solely on Ethereum. I personally think both are reliable; which do you consider unreliable? The second of two critical articles by Daniel Krawisz has more than a passing mention. I have added references to Coinsummit, and a Harvard presentation which show that the currency is being taken seriously. Sanpitch (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This Wired article contains a single trivial mention of its existence in a single sentence, and is cited only to support the statement that it is mentioned in Wired. The Globe and Mail article, cited for the same reason, includes just three sentences about Ethereum. This other Wired article does include some detailed more coverage. The opening paragraph said Ethereum is "considered by many to be a second generation cryptocurency", while the cited reference didn't mention "generation", "2nd", or "second", and referring to the vague opinion of "many" does seem unduly promotional; I just removed that. Agyle (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Agyle for your good comments and updates to the article. I have made a few other minor updates. I continue to maintain that Ethereum is a good and useful currency. Sanpitch (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Some detail about what the source said about the coin would improve the article, specifically what makes it notable and unique.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, in addition to the sources already presented I also found a few more with non-trivial mentions: Yahoo News, Medium.comAl Jazeera and Forbes --Jerebin (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote. FYI the Yahoo article is a press release from the Ethereum team, the Medium article is by an Ethereum team member, the Forbes article is not Ethereum-specific, and the Al Jazeera article is already cited. Sanpitch (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was about to point out the same things. :-) I would not consider the first two for notability, and would weigh Forbes more lightly than full articles like Al-Jazeera's. Agyle (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. While RS coverage is not plentiful, I think there's enough to meet GNG. The article is currently very weak, but not due to lack of sources. Some information about the topic is vague, because it its initial release is still pending, but RS coverage has been ongoing for several months. Agyle (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2014 (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.