Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ERC-1155

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. Sandstein 21:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ERC-1155

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Apparently-promotional article for obscure cryptocurrency thing that's barely covered in crypto blogs, let alone mainstream sources. Zero evidence of notability. Refbombed - literally every single source is either a crypto blog (the NASDAQ is a crypto blog reprint), or irrelevant to the topic and doesn't even mention ERC-1155 - and this is after a source and OR cleanout. Declined PROD, which creator tried to fix by adding more bad and/or irrelevant sources. David Gerard (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am generally not in favor of removing informational articles, but unfortunately in this case, the article has veered headlong into the promotional category for something that is ostensibly about a standard. As David mentioned above, the sources are really bad. I still think there's a place for an ERC-1155 article on Wikipedia, but it isn't now (without enough reliable sources) and this article is not a good starting point. --Molochmeditates (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If this is indeed the agreed-upon opinion of more senior Wikipedia editors, then deletion is fair enough. It probably is too early for an article to be able to demonstrate the required mainstream notability when the subject matter has yet to break into the social mainstream, so any attempt at writing about it now will likely run into the same issues that this attempt did.

I would however like to contend that sources added after the initial proposal for deletion were not irrelevant: they clearly involved a mainstream game publication (Polygon) speaking about a game that has adopted the standard, and made the integration of blockchain a focus of the game's notability. Other articles confirmed that it was the ERC1155 standard being adopted by said game. Just as most people not knowing how the complex machinations of an Internal Combustion Engine work does not mean that Internal Combustion Engines are irrelevant to account for when speaking about automobiles, so I believe that individual token standards are indeed relevant to speaking about how blockchain works (when people choose to delve into that level of detail).

It's just unfortunate that the relative technological complexity of blockchain and low levels of mainstream adoption mean that any coverage in acceptable mainstream sources have been primarily limited to very broad topline discussion of Bitcoin (which by virtue of being the first cryptocurrency also has less recent technological development than many). Perhaps in future as blockchain (and blockchain gaming in particular) gains more mainstream awareness, blockchain-centric sources will become more acceptable, or more of the currently-acceptable publications will have had time to cover them. For now though, the requirements make writing about any finer or emerging details quite troublesome. --FrendlyBaratheon (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

XfD

.

reliable sources for existing articles. That's a good way to get your feet wet. I look forward to your continued participation in improving Wikipedia's blockchain and crypto coverage. --Molochmeditates (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2019 (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.