Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sia (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sia (technology)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another non-notable cryptocurrency. Article is wholly based off press releases and other closely connected sources, and there is no mention of the technology in media reports other than incidentally. Fails the GNG. Kb.au (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Kb.au's assessment. First, Sia is regularly in the top cryptocurrencies in terms of market capitalization. With regards to sources, I think it's a little disingenuous to call Forbes and the International Business Times "closely connected sources". I don't understand why you'd nominate this article for deletion, yet not nominate Filecoin (which doesn't even exist yet-- it's just a whitepaper at this point) or STORJ, which isn't even in the top 100 coins. Of all the blockchain technologies which are poised to revolutionize cloud storage Sia is the biggest player-- I'd argue that's very notable. Richard☺Decal (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard.decal - do you have more WP:RS than the entry in a single Forbes list? We need more than that for notability and to write more than a stub. The IB Times source is an interview so not independent - it doesn't count for GNG. It justifies the entry in List of cryptocurrencies, yes. Widefox; talk 00:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (weak) sourcing is weak failing/borderline GNG. There's many sources which are primary, or non-independent. Widefox; talk 00:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wifefox: I've labeled the article as a stub to bring it in line with the STORJ and Filecoin articles. Is that sufficient to avoid deletion until better sourcing can be found? Richard☺Decal (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard WP:OTHERSTUFF , WP:ALLORNOTHING , WP:ARBITRARY (top 100 coins) are arguments to avoid at AfD. Labelled stub or not doesn't matter, it's about if there's sources out there (doesn't have to be in the article), but availability is enough and posting here or in the article allows evaluation. Widefox; talk 16:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify paucity of secondary sources without any turning up here appears to fail or be borderline WP:GNG. As it may just need more sources, nothing against drafifying & AfC. Widefox; talk 16:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wish people would do a simple Google News search and you will find that the premise of the deletion nomination is off base. Coverage by mainstream and notable sources are significant and susbtantial:
- Motherboard [1]
- Computerworld [2]
- Boston Globe [3]
- Ars Technica [4]
- Bloomberg [5]

Folks, the cryptocurrency crusade to round up and delete crypto articles is getting ridiculous. Yes, the mania around crypto in popular culture is irrational but that should not cloud our judgment around notability and verifiability. Remember, we do have an article about tulip mania. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's one article, rather than one for each tulip colour, but I agree there's borderline stuff. The issue is WP:PRIMARYNEWS isn't it? Widefox; talk 22:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ding ding ding! This wins the poor analogy prize of the week. We have articles on multiple gold and precious metal rushes, so there is well-established precedent in addressing these individually. See: List of commodity booms -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fuzheado Why did you start the analogies "tulip mania", "gold"/"precious metal" "commodity booms" and the hyperbole/AGF "crusade" then?! It's WP:OTHERSTUFF anyhow, not "precedent". If you check my edit history, you'll see even the creator has notability doubts about their article creation flourish, and I'm here from scrutinising their edits to eliminate any COI/promo concerns coming from WP:COIN. That makes your anti-crypto POV pushing assumption AGF, and factually, provably wrong. No prize, put away the soap box.

So, my point is obviously that we already have Cryptocurrency bubble (and List of cryptocurrencies), and the granularity of what's a notable topic inside the bubble is debatable. Yes, we do have articles on companies in the Dot-com bubble, but even multi billion dollar market cap ones don't have articles. Is it WP:TOOSOON / WP:RECENTISM is the question, as there's sources, but I repeat PRIMARYNEWS. Take the Arstechnica source title Investors poured millions into a storage network that doesn’t exist yet (emphasis own), that source is arguably about notability for the Cryptocurrency bubble, rather than the vaporware (at time of publishing). Widefox; talk 13:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per Widefox's rationales. An article about something which ~~doesn't (yet) exist and which may therefore~~ is yet to demonstrate that it is notable in and of itself rather than as part of a larger trend is something which is clearly written too soon. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. You are cherry picking one old article. See the other ones cited. It does exist and is operating as you can see from the map of active hosts [6]. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale amended. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzheado, that's kind of my point - there's a paucity of qualify secondary sources telling about this interesting topic, Ars Technica Aug 2017 cited is out of date. Yes, only 6 months old. Computerworld 2018 updates - says 1,000 hosts in 50 countries. The Bloomberg source is about ICOs with this being an example, how can we build an article on so few quality sources for what this is? Widefox; talk 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Widefox. If anything, the sourcing here demonstrates how non-notable the subject is. Simply being mentioned is not the same as significant coverage, and it can be part of an example about a larger trend, which it is here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.