Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2018 December 7
2018 December 9 >

8 December 2018

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Smart Token ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I found out about this CSD G11 deletion per a Reddit thread. While I don't know how likely it is that this article meets the notability guidelines, I don't think it's unambiguous advertising or promotion either. The scope of G11 is very narrow: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION." This article might have put too much emphasis on one brand (Bancor), but not to the extent that is necessary for a G11 deletion. (note: I'm basing my comment on the article copy that the author posted on Reddit – I never saw the page before it was deleted.) – IagoQnsi ( talk) 03:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • I don't think this was a G11 candidate, so the speedy deletion was a mistake. However it isn't remotely suitable for mainspace and certainly looks like it could be a WP:COATRACK to talk about the Bancor crytocurrency. Every reference is about the Bancor cryptocurrency, it's the only one mentioned, and all the sources are unreliable. Somebody at the linked Reddit thread suggested that the general sanctions for cryptocurrencies allow admins to summarily delete any pages about cryptocurrencies, which is not correct at all. Hut 8.5 11:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • The Bancor cryptocurrency is not (in the vast majority of cases) a smart token, but is commonly "held" by other smart tokens which employ the Bancor Protocol. This article references the Bancor Token on one occasion which describes a security incident involving a Token Relay. This is a case of poor naming by the designers. A an article about Bluetooth is not really trying to promote the Bluetooth Special Interest Group. It just happens the common name for the technology is a brand. The important references to "Bancor" in this article are referring to the Bancor Protocol. I have considered stripping any references to "Bancor" or "Bancor Protocol" out of the text, but not the citations. I don't consider the sources, other than the Medium article "unreliable." Smart Tokens are essentially a form of free and open-source software. You'll find that a majority of software articles fail to meet Wikipedia's source standards, such as the article on par (command) or Krita which are largely or entirely self-referential. Maxlysle ( talk) 23:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
      • The article had four citations, two to Medium, which are basically blog posts and aren't reliable sources. One is to a technical description of a cryptocurrency protocol, which is also a self-published source by the look of it. The Business Insider source may be OK but it doesn't mention smart tokens at all. Sure, Wikipedia has plenty of badly referenced articles, but that doesn't mean your article shouldn't have good references. It may be that the other articles you link to need to be deleted. If the subjects haven't been covered outside of official documentation then they should be. Hut 8.5 19:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
        • The business insider source, alongside other mainstream sources covering the incident erroneously refer to bancor as an exchange instead of introducing new terminology like "smart token" or "token relay." The same story covered by cointelegraph correctly explains bancor and uses the term smart token [1]. The coin-telegraph article can be used alongside the business insider source. This is why I believe primary sources should be reliable and accepted. Using strictly Wikipedia-approved reliable sources makes Wikipedia a worse place. A "reliable" Wikipedia is an oudated Wikipedia with superficial or erroneous information. WP:IAR. Maxlysle ( talk) 23:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ O'Neal, Stephen. "Bancor Urges Industry Players to Collaborate After $23.5 Million Hack". Coin Telegraph. Retrieved 9 December 2018.
  • We shouldn't be writing articles based on primary sources. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, they summarise what secondary sources say. The use of primary sources is only permitted in very limited situations ( WP:PRIMARY), and I doubt anyone will let you ignore that. Hut 8.5 07:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn G11. I've tempundeleted this for review. My initial impression is that the first half of this article, which talks about smart tokens, is clearly not G11 material, but the second half, which talks about Bancor, possibly is. I'm not an expert in cryptocurrency, so I'm having a hard time figuring out how tightly those two concepts are bound to each other. Maxlysle's comments above say they're not tightly bound at all, in which case simply deleting the bancor-specific half might be enough to resolve any G11-ness. I have no idea if this passes WP:N or even WP:V, but I think it's clear that it passes WP:G11. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I don't know much either, but things don't look promotional wrt Bancor in my opinion. And for goodness sake, it's in draft space where things are supposed to have a chance to evolve. This seems like the start of a reasonable article. So basically agree with Roy, but with a bit more vehemence. Hobit ( talk) 03:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Addendum to my comment above. This was suggested for WP:G11 by User:Bkissin, who said, More cryptospam in violation of general sanctions, referring to WP:GS/Crypto. GS/Crypto only talks about policing editor behavior, specifically revert wars. It doesn't say anything about deleting articles. I detest wikispam as much as anybody, but we can't be using GS/Crypto as a WP:CSD just because it's convenient. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • As far as i know, Smart Token is a latest or upgraded version of ERC-20. Therefore, the article in question may need improvement suggestions rather than deleting. While understanding the WP:MTAU, the page creator should learn the facts mentioned on WP:BFAQ. Thanks Farooqahmadbhat ( talk) 17:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • This is not exactly true anymore. Smart Tokens exist on both Ethereum and EOS, but ERC-20 is a purely Ethereum standard. As for WP:MTAU, I've tried to make the article as clear as possible. I want to expand some sections and provide graphs to help the reader along. As for WP:BFAQ, I want to make it clear that I am not an employee of Bancor and do not hold any Bancor related Tokens. I have no conflict of interest other than I am a fan of the project who knows how it works. Maxlysle ( talk) 23:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn - It is not "exclusively promotional" and therefore does not meet G11. It is also in the draftspace, which is meant for pages that need improved. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 17:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_December_8&oldid=1039547051"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2018 December 7
2018 December 9 >

8 December 2018

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Smart Token ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I found out about this CSD G11 deletion per a Reddit thread. While I don't know how likely it is that this article meets the notability guidelines, I don't think it's unambiguous advertising or promotion either. The scope of G11 is very narrow: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION." This article might have put too much emphasis on one brand (Bancor), but not to the extent that is necessary for a G11 deletion. (note: I'm basing my comment on the article copy that the author posted on Reddit – I never saw the page before it was deleted.) – IagoQnsi ( talk) 03:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • I don't think this was a G11 candidate, so the speedy deletion was a mistake. However it isn't remotely suitable for mainspace and certainly looks like it could be a WP:COATRACK to talk about the Bancor crytocurrency. Every reference is about the Bancor cryptocurrency, it's the only one mentioned, and all the sources are unreliable. Somebody at the linked Reddit thread suggested that the general sanctions for cryptocurrencies allow admins to summarily delete any pages about cryptocurrencies, which is not correct at all. Hut 8.5 11:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • The Bancor cryptocurrency is not (in the vast majority of cases) a smart token, but is commonly "held" by other smart tokens which employ the Bancor Protocol. This article references the Bancor Token on one occasion which describes a security incident involving a Token Relay. This is a case of poor naming by the designers. A an article about Bluetooth is not really trying to promote the Bluetooth Special Interest Group. It just happens the common name for the technology is a brand. The important references to "Bancor" in this article are referring to the Bancor Protocol. I have considered stripping any references to "Bancor" or "Bancor Protocol" out of the text, but not the citations. I don't consider the sources, other than the Medium article "unreliable." Smart Tokens are essentially a form of free and open-source software. You'll find that a majority of software articles fail to meet Wikipedia's source standards, such as the article on par (command) or Krita which are largely or entirely self-referential. Maxlysle ( talk) 23:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
      • The article had four citations, two to Medium, which are basically blog posts and aren't reliable sources. One is to a technical description of a cryptocurrency protocol, which is also a self-published source by the look of it. The Business Insider source may be OK but it doesn't mention smart tokens at all. Sure, Wikipedia has plenty of badly referenced articles, but that doesn't mean your article shouldn't have good references. It may be that the other articles you link to need to be deleted. If the subjects haven't been covered outside of official documentation then they should be. Hut 8.5 19:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
        • The business insider source, alongside other mainstream sources covering the incident erroneously refer to bancor as an exchange instead of introducing new terminology like "smart token" or "token relay." The same story covered by cointelegraph correctly explains bancor and uses the term smart token [1]. The coin-telegraph article can be used alongside the business insider source. This is why I believe primary sources should be reliable and accepted. Using strictly Wikipedia-approved reliable sources makes Wikipedia a worse place. A "reliable" Wikipedia is an oudated Wikipedia with superficial or erroneous information. WP:IAR. Maxlysle ( talk) 23:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ O'Neal, Stephen. "Bancor Urges Industry Players to Collaborate After $23.5 Million Hack". Coin Telegraph. Retrieved 9 December 2018.
  • We shouldn't be writing articles based on primary sources. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, they summarise what secondary sources say. The use of primary sources is only permitted in very limited situations ( WP:PRIMARY), and I doubt anyone will let you ignore that. Hut 8.5 07:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn G11. I've tempundeleted this for review. My initial impression is that the first half of this article, which talks about smart tokens, is clearly not G11 material, but the second half, which talks about Bancor, possibly is. I'm not an expert in cryptocurrency, so I'm having a hard time figuring out how tightly those two concepts are bound to each other. Maxlysle's comments above say they're not tightly bound at all, in which case simply deleting the bancor-specific half might be enough to resolve any G11-ness. I have no idea if this passes WP:N or even WP:V, but I think it's clear that it passes WP:G11. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I don't know much either, but things don't look promotional wrt Bancor in my opinion. And for goodness sake, it's in draft space where things are supposed to have a chance to evolve. This seems like the start of a reasonable article. So basically agree with Roy, but with a bit more vehemence. Hobit ( talk) 03:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Addendum to my comment above. This was suggested for WP:G11 by User:Bkissin, who said, More cryptospam in violation of general sanctions, referring to WP:GS/Crypto. GS/Crypto only talks about policing editor behavior, specifically revert wars. It doesn't say anything about deleting articles. I detest wikispam as much as anybody, but we can't be using GS/Crypto as a WP:CSD just because it's convenient. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • As far as i know, Smart Token is a latest or upgraded version of ERC-20. Therefore, the article in question may need improvement suggestions rather than deleting. While understanding the WP:MTAU, the page creator should learn the facts mentioned on WP:BFAQ. Thanks Farooqahmadbhat ( talk) 17:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • This is not exactly true anymore. Smart Tokens exist on both Ethereum and EOS, but ERC-20 is a purely Ethereum standard. As for WP:MTAU, I've tried to make the article as clear as possible. I want to expand some sections and provide graphs to help the reader along. As for WP:BFAQ, I want to make it clear that I am not an employee of Bancor and do not hold any Bancor related Tokens. I have no conflict of interest other than I am a fan of the project who knows how it works. Maxlysle ( talk) 23:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn - It is not "exclusively promotional" and therefore does not meet G11. It is also in the draftspace, which is meant for pages that need improved. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 17:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_December_8&oldid=1039547051"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE