Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOTA (technology)


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

IOTA (technology)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is going to be a difficult one, where people are going to angry. This is not a WP article. If you go through this very carefully, you will see that it is almost entirely sourced from a) very low quality blogs: b) churnalism c) actual press releases: d) forbes contributors and the like; or e) nothing.  For example, Crytography section cites 3 scientific papers, none of which mention Iota, then a press release, then some usergenerated comments on Gitub. This is what i mean. We are getting a ton of hype and promotion in WP about cryptocurrencies, much of from people who hold the currency and are looking to abuse our openness to pump up their currencies.  This is what you get. This needs to be razed. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree with Jytdog. In particular, the cryptography section contains misleading statements and citations. The overall tone of the article is clearly marketing, not a neutral description. Cdcdb (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Before deletion an attempt should be made to find more relevant sources. Instead of deletion i would recommend publishing a more balanced viewpoint of IOTA as well as updating source material in accordance with wikipedia rules. I would recommend ammending or partial deletion of sections related to cryptography over complete deletion of this article. "7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betaglutamate (talk • contribs) (an WP:SPA account, comment refactored) Widefox ; talk 10:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep it passes WP:OTHERSTUFF over many of the other crypto-coins (note ), and is some (very recent) significant coverage that isn't in the trade press.  I agree that much of the existing content is promotional hype that should be removed. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * if you look at the history you will see that i started trimming... i got to a place where i saw nothing left, and backed out. I am not opposed to there being an article, but this needs to be nuked.  When we are at a place where an article needs to be rewritten from scratch, it is time to delete per TNT/GII and let someone build it new. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Power~enwiki OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid in AfD. Widefox ; talk 10:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has been trimmed, contains some notable sources. IOTA is currently ranked 11th per Coinmarketcap.com which in its own makes it a notable crypto. prokaryotes (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete:  This article mainly reads like a commercial for not only the product, but the people behind the product as well.  The authors of the article repeatedly removed criticism and controversy sections.  The article does not accurately describe the technology that IOTA currently is. Pgdr (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Notice Above user made exactly the one comment above. While there are indeed COI issues from past editors, those content is almost all gone, except for the Foundation section. If you follow-up the links from the new Reception section you can read about drama and possible Off-Wikipedia COI-issues. prokaryotes (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That section is exactly what is wrong with this page in WP. We have there a Forbes contributor piece, some blog, and the self-serving "response" from the Iota Foundation.  If there are not independent refs of decent quality that discuss all of this, it should not be in WP.  That whole section is a work of SYN as well.  No section should be built this way - we summarize what secondary sources say.  It is ok to use primary sources to fill in around the edges, but not to build narratives this way. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC) (strike per below Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC))
 * The IOTA response is exactly what you mention, a primary source, same for the security expert blog who found the vulnerability. Then there is a German magazine link (in German), and another primary source from MIT, and a Forbes article. The NASDAQ reference, cited elsewhere, also uses the same content. NASDAQ, German magazine, Forbes are secondary sources. There are many more from other cryptocurrency related websites. prokaryotes (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Added Coindesk and NASDAQ references to address above concerns. prokaryotes (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Above argument that the Forbes article was written by a Forbes contributer, is false - written by Forbes Staff. prokaryotes (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out my error. Yes that is Forbes staff and OK. The Nasdaq ref is bloggy so not great, but independent and probably OK (what you write about it, The NASDAQ reference, cited elsewhere, also uses the same content., is just.... bizarre. What are you talking about?) If by the "german source" you mean this, that is an informal, chatty blog.  Really low quality.  The rest of the claims are incorrect.
 * Way too much of this article is garbage-sourced and this is clearly because a) there are not enough high quality, independent refs and b) way too many advocates are trying to pad this.
 * It is clear that even with "rescue efforts" underway, there are not enough high quality independent sources to write an article - it is TOOSOON and all the poor quality editing based on poor quality sources is not going to change that. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you clarify your claim that the section is written as per WP:SYN, or do you retract that too? 2) AFD is not done by cherry picking an article section. 3) In your reason for AFD you wrote almost entirely sourced from a) very low quality blogs: b) churnalism c) actual press releases: d) forbes contributors However, those arguments are moot after recent article edits. prokaryotes (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Stringing stuff together using primary sources is SYN. With regard to the rest, please see my last reply which was indeed written after the "rescue" efforts. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears that you missed the updates which include primary sources and secondary sources. However, besides this distraction. IOTA is among the most valued cryptocurrencies per Bloomberg (as in a lot of trading), and according to this post from the Cryptocurrency Task Force meets notability. prokaryotes (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

to quantify, here is the page now. it has 17 refs. -- Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * directly from Iota: refs 3, 4, 8, 17
 * primary/SPs from somebody else: ref 14
 * point of data about marketcap (useless for N discussions): ref 1
 * press release/churnalism: ref 2/9 (basically same, but 2 adds shilling to buy a research report) 5, (very blatant churnalism), 6, 7 (so much hype there!), 10 (actually a press release), 11
 * stock price chasing low quality bloggy news (we are NOTNEWS): 13, 16
 * kind of decent refs: 12 (nasdaq), 15 (forbes)
 * That's not how you assess a reference for a crptocurrency article. Whitepaper and github link are per Infobox, and used as a primary source, see other cryptos. Marketcap per Cryptocurrency Task Force is indeed a notable reference. 13 and 16 are the NASDAQ and Forbes reference you mention as decent..... Please make yourself more familiar with references commonly used at Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple etc. prokaryotes (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not how we assess notability in WP - there are no walled gardens here and no way will we have one for cryptocurrencies; if folks at that project are advocating to become a walled garden we will have to nominate that project for deletion.
 * I will not be replying to you further, as this is just the anticipated advocacy clutter. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are moot, you retracted your Forbes point, base your decisions on whitepaper links and such. At this point you should retract your AFD (if possible?), or vote with keep. prokaryotes (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the page on cryptocurrency notabilty you cited; it was edited one time, three years ago, and is watched by less than 30 people (page info). Not compelling; not even worth MfDing. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly we need such a page, and until we don't have something better, that page seems pretty spot on, even after three years. Also see this post for crypto RS.prokaryotes (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment WikiProject Numismatics/Cryptocurrency task force/notability looks like very WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, under discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Widefox ; talk 10:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not so much "discussed" as "dismissed outright". See here. --Calton | Talk 15:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete or userify / Draftify / AfC if say User:Prokaryotes wants to address the concerns here and rewrite based on more RS like Forbes and NASDAQ. That would save it being a WP:TNT. Widefox ; talk 10:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you looked at the recent changes, article has been rewritten already, contains many reliable sources. If the Wikipedia Community Consensus wants to delete this page they should delete every other crypto article as well, since they use similar sources (CoinTelegraph, Whitepapers etc). I do not plan to substantially edit the page, no need for that. prokaryotes (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at all of them, but there are many that are much better sourced and better written than this. With the lack of independent RS for this subject, that is not surprising. Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read some of the recent sources, and I have neutrality concerns as tagged. One appeared to be a primary source too. Widefox ; talk 01:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Prokaryotes my offer to userify to you seems to have been too subtle. I've reconsidered due to this being detrimental in article space until its shown notable and fixed, and as you seem to disagree with what the N consensus is, AfC -> Draft -> Delete is my revised preference. WP:BLUDGEON is also worth a read. Widefox ; talk 20:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Prokaryotes, the argument "should delete every other crypto article as well" is WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:OTHERSTUFF, market cap (which varies by factors weekly) and rankings are WP:ARBITRARY - all arguments to avoid at AfD. Widefox ; talk 03:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 'Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrashAwake (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)  — CrashAwake (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Jytdog, maybe shift focus away from COI, arguments, edit wars and proposing deletions, particularly controversial ones like this, you are on your last warning after all.

'...an indefinite ban from discussing any COI of editors '

'This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I regard false accusation as personal attacks. Be warned. The Banner talk 18:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)'

On 27 June 2016 I was blocked for violating WP:OUTING in the course of doing COI work, and that block was lifted on 8 August 2016 with an indefinite ban from discussing any COI of editors (see unblock notice for details), which was appealable in six months and every six months thereafter. I appealed in February 2017 and the TBAN was lifted. ARCA discussion archived here; notice given to me here.' -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01:46, 4 February 2018‎ (talk • contribs) CrashAwake (UTC)  — CrashAwake (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * He can say whatever he wants, look a my talk page, he wrote, WP's articles on cryptocurrencies have been beset by people adding badly sourced or unsourced promotional content. Your edits reflect this tendency. In my opinion, at this point, it is more efficient to promote Jytdog to administrator. Nobody is going to ban him, from my experience here, he is untouchable. prokaryotes (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ad hominems don't advance your argument, quite the opposite as offtopic clutter, especially when replying to a disruptive uncivil SPA. Widefox ; talk 01:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Draftify I still see enough serious issues like improper use of primary, that it might be beneficial to have this article pass through AfC, especially as it has a history of COI editing - my understanding is any article like this is required to go through the AfC process anyway? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 13:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes that's exactly my conclusion - AfC for review by non-COI would be doubly useful. Widefox ; talk 20:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, yes this article has a long list of issues but the fact that so many neutral websites mention it (reliable or not) proves notability, biased content can always be replaced, but that doesn't warrent a full deletion of the entire article. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (Sockpuppets 🎭) (Articles 📚) 22:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That "so many" websites mention this is utterly immaterial, either for assessing notability or sourcing an article: actual, in-depth attention from reliable sources is what counts. --Calton | Talk 15:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Donald Trung That argument is so far off what is required here, please read WP:AFD and WP:N, WP:RS. This is not a vote (a !vote) - it is the weight of your argument based in policy that counts. Saying that, yes there is WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. It is RS rather than "(reliable or not)" that matter here. Including "not" means one cannot count on a single one being reliable. Widefox ; talk 02:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Cryptocurrencies are now a dime a dozen, and nothing in the article gives the slightest indication of how this one is notable. --Calton | Talk 15:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is not the only grounds for deletion here, all this advocacy in the face of our standards makes me question if this is also failing WP:NOTPROMO, giving it a second reason to delete even if notable. Widefox ; talk 02:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. on the basis of   borderline notability and clear promotionalism. The references are basically PR, plus some financial notices.  DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 10 February 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.