Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industrial blockchain

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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Thjarkur (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial blockchain

[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)

This article is not needed. Business applications of blockchains are already mentioned in Blockchain#Uses, the rest of the article is a WP:COATRACK about how blockhain might "enhance" and "contribute to the advancement" of Cyber-physical systems rather than anything about how blockhains are used in the industry or on an industrial scale. – Thjarkur (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been created to motivate researchers for contributing to industrial applications of blockchain technology and more precisely focus on smart manufacturing. Although there is another page talking about blockchain in general, but smart manufacturing (or cyber-physical-system) is itself a very big industry with its own challenges and limitations. Recently GE, IBM, Mazak, P&G, etc have shown a huge interest in using blockchain in their manufacturing progress towards industry 4.0. This page would serve as a guideline that gradually would be completed and used for industrial people with the main focus on their specific needs rather than some shallow discussion on some other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus Azamfar (talk • contribs)

Comment: I am having trouble finding a deletion rationale in there. WP:SKCRIT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightburst (talk • contribs) Ok I see it thanks ST47 Lightburst (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Articles are allowed to exist on subtopics. If there is enough encyclopedic content available on the subtopic, it could very well warrant it's own article. While I do disagree with the purpose of the article provided by Cyrus Azamfar, in particular using the article to "motive researchers", I do agree with the rest of his comment. Using blockchain within manufacturing appears to be very notable, and with enough big corporations such as GE, IBM, and Mazak provided, I'm very confident that there is significant coverage with verifiable information. Of course, I haven't investigated yet, therefore I shouldn't cast a vote at this time. But that's just what I'm picking up upon reading the nomination. Utopes (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Upon thoroughly reading, it appears that the topic is notable, and supported by verifiable journals. While I won't deny that the article is structured like an essay, and should be appropriately fixed (and also doesn't add any necessary wikilinks, which is very important for a specialized article such as this one. But that doesn't pertain to my !vote). Nevertheless, AfD is not cleanup. The article, while it has flaws, is by no means an article worthy of deletion for existing on a notable subtopic. Utopes (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's rationale is that this information duplicates some of the information that we already have in Blockchain#Uses. If information can be merged it should be WP:PRESERVE however my concern is that the Blockchain#Uses article is already lengthy. This article is sourced with WP:RSs Lightburst (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator – I didn't think there would be much to preserve if this article were to be merged somewhere, but if others feel that the topic itself is notable enough then I withdraw this nomination. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:47, 12 November 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.