Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightning Network


 * 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. There is a consensus among participating editors that there was significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources to justify notability. While I did not fully examine it, my brief look into allegations of canvassing did not indicate anything improper or which would otherwise prevent this AfD from being closed with a consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Lightning Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason: There is a problem with notability of the subject: the citations in the article refer to self-published texts that are not acceptable for notability. Other sources found also do not qualify as significant coverage by sources independent on the subject. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think Bitcoin Lightning Network might be a better name; but I think that the Lightning Network is sufficiently notable for WP. It's fair to say that it's one of the most important initiatives in the Bitcoin ecosystem and seems to be the only viable path for Bitcoin to be used as a retail/mobile payment system (as opposed to a transaction settlement system or a digital asset). JimD (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * nah, it was designed to work with other coins, e.g. Litecoin, and even has a cross-chain payment system (even if it's clunky and exploitable) - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Lightning Network can be used for payment channels and value transfer with a wide variety of cryptocurrencies (or even without cryptocurrencies potentially as demonstrated by a recent chat app Whatsat). It would not make sense to label it as "bitcoin" even though that is its primary use case currently (just as the "World Wide Web" is not "the Internet"). Litecoin is actively tested as well for example. – JonathanCross (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Can this link do as not self-published? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-15/technology-meant-to-make-bitcoin-money-again-is-going-live-today . knocte (talk) 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 11.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * comment Dredging for mainstream press coverage, I find these articles that are substantially or entirely about Lightning: FT, Bloomberg , Wired , Ars Technica  - there's likely more - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * comment - I find it difficult to take seriously almost any press coverage of lightening, bitcoin, or cryptocurrency in general. Our articles are even worse most of the time. The Bob and Carol explanation in Lightning is among the better examples and still laughable. I'd prefer to get rid of the whole lot - ultimately it looks like many people are having the wool pulled over their eyes by a few crooks who claim the impossible. There's no reason for Wikipedia to get involved at all. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Lightning Network is functional today and can be used to buy things. The suggestion that hundreds of professionals and academics working on this are somehow "crooks who claim the impossible" is both factually incorrect and inappropriate here in this discussion about notability of the subject. – JonathanCross (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * comment If it doesn't deserve its own article, it is surely notable enough within the sphere of Bitcoin to be a section in the Bitcoin article? &mdash;ajf (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * comment - combine all the crypto etc. articles into 3 mega articles. That would be better for everybody involved. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * With crypto articles, we've been tending to need them to show that anyone cares outside the crypto bubble - so, mainstream press sources or peer-reviewed academic sources are required for notability. Could we write an article from what I listed there? Maybe. Is it evidence of sufficient notability? Not sure, which is why I just provided the list - David Gerard (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (As a note, is a recognized expert in the field of crypto currency, so he should hopefully weigh in on this. I really think that he would agree with me that Lightning Network is notable in the context of Bitcoin even if it is not a good system). Michepman (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This just means I have more sources ;-) I think it might well be, otoh the mainstream coverage is "gosh this is a thing isn't it!" and "but it doesn't work very well does it" - which may indicate notability, but won't give us so much to work with - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * comment I feel like this subject could get adequately covered as part of a broader article on consensusless decenteralized payment systems, but considering that lightning is the only such system with even moderately wide deployment and that there aren't a lot of secondary sources on the broader idea... that gets in the way of covering it that way. There are a lot of bit-rotten obscure cryptocurrency articles that should probably be removed and if I were to rank them, I'd put lightning near the bottom of a list. As was pointed out above, lightning isn't Bitcoin specific but could be used with a multitude of systems that provide a small number of properties (in the case of centeralized systems, it could even potentially be used without the operators' knowledge). Covering it as part of a bitcoin article wouldn't really work, as a result.--Gmaxwell (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * normally we dont remove old dead subjects. They are useful from a historic perspective. Also think your suggestion of a broader article would be nice, maybe we can do that when there are some other similar networks up on ethereum, etc. Or maybe they will later all be referred to as lightning, if that becomes the common name. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure-- not merely for being dead. But when a subject is active and on the border of notability wikipedia sometimes leans toward keeping it around and seeing what happens. But if a subject has gone cold historical perspective can make the lack of interest more clear than it was in realtime. Regardless, lightning is very much not dead. My only point there was that effort debating the boundary of cryptocurrency notability would be better spent on things that weren't close to obvious keeps. :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * indeed. FYI, this nomination probably resulted from a discussion we were having over at Talk:Bitcoin where this AFD nominator also appears to have deleted the lightning content from the Bitcoin article as well. Sad/laughable, but we we deal with here at wikipedia, if you dont like it, then delete it... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic is clearly notable within the field of cryptocurrency as one of the main protocols underlying Bitcoin. The 'delete' votes seem to be inappropriately focused on whether Bitcoin or crypto currency is a good idea or whether the article in its current state is good. The crypto currency industry may be filled with scammers and swindlers but that doesn't mean that the topic isn't notable -- we have articles about multilevel marketing, advance fee fraud, perpetual motion, all kinds of pseudoscience, etc. Something being shady doesn't make it unnotable. The article is not especially well written but we don't use WP:AFD to punish articles for not being well written. Michepman (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Frivolous nomination. Meets WP:GNG with sources from Bloomberg, Fortune (magazine), FT Alphaville, Daily Express, Ars Technica, Wired (magazine), Andreas Antonopoulos's books, etc. A lot of hits in google books as well . Silly nomination really, probably should be withdrawn. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * comment yay, press coverage! I've put Not a ballot up top accordingly. Best way to get the Lightning article kept is to fill it with quality sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * comment Good catch. I hope that we don't get brigaded. I don't think that this article should be deleted but the discussion should stay focused on facts and sources rather than brigade attacks on the nominator. Michepman (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The nominator has also deleted lightning network content (with WP:RS's) from various other articles under discussion Talk:Bitcoin_Cash and Talk:Bitcoin, its not only this nomination. Interesting that these discussions result in news articles, but we haven't an influx of comments, so maybe few people read these crypto news articles anyhow and a good thing they are no longer used as sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - In addition to what User:Jtbobwaysf has said about sources, I think this subject has enough notability as a data structure alone. The subject potentially applies to several chains (not just Bitcoin), and we have to remember that this is a process that could even be done on a pen and paper if need be. It is also not purely abstract - the subject is far enough along to use at industrial scale (with great care). As such, not only is it notable enough to keep, but it is notable enough as a standalone page within the scope of cryptocurrency, and maybe even more broadly within the study of all of computer science. – Kjerish (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Lightning Network is the most important and most advanced "second layer" cryptocurrency project, mainly related to Bitcoin but not only. Several teams from different parts of the world (Lightning Labs, Blockstream, Acinq, etc.) are working collaboratively to elaborate the LN standard (BOLTS).  I can't even imagine how it could have been suggested for deletion.  Fmably (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - A WP:BEFORE was needed and required. Passes WP:GNG with RS from Bloomberg, Fortune (magazine) etc. Lightburst (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - As stated earlier, there's clear examples of press coverage outside of the cryptocurrency / bitcoin space demonstrating basic notability of the subject. The article quality clearly could be improved, but neither that, nor a personal bias against cryptocurrencies in general seem like appropriate grounds for deletion. The Lightning Network itself is novel and a beneficial addition to Wikipedia IMO. – JonathanCross (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * looks like it should be kept. My main comment is that I hope this doesn’t meet the (temporary) fate of the GNAA article which was repeatedly put up for deletion, kept, and through sheer attrition was deleted... and then it recreated and stays here to this day. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The Lightning Network conceptual design started back in 2013 and has had the perpetual promise of being ready for production in "18 months" going on now for close to 7 years. Lightning Network is nothing more than vapourware and this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeedAUsername44 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * — NeedAUsername44 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ミラP 02:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per others. If you look here, the nom has canvassed several people to this discussion. I've reverted most of them per WP:DENY. ミラP 02:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing allegation

 * You stated above you removed AfD notices from many user's talk pages. I find this inappropriate. FYI, I guess knew well I would vote keep (and he was a delete vote as the nominator), so I am not sure how pinging me (someone who he can assume will vote against his proposal) is canvassing. He can assume this as Ladislav and I were discussing lightning content (from opposite sides of the fence) at Talk:Bitcoin_Cash the same day he created this AfD. I believe that pinging involved editors on an AfD nomination is correct protocol and I have done it myself in the past. If I have put this sub-section in the wrong area, an admin can feel free to move it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2019 (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.