Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sia (software)

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. T. Canens (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sia (software)

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

Non-notable product (software) of an equally non-notable company. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While this article does have no references it was tagged with a PROD and then an AfD within a relatively short amount of time of the article being created (hours), not giving the editor much time to improve the article (they did remove the PROD so they must be aware of the issues). I would suggest userfication here to allow the editor due time, to avoid coming across as bitey. Garchy (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. As the article is less then 24 hours old, let's give some time to get up to standards. Sario528 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in blockchain storage projects, Sia is considered one of the major players and is very well known. robvanmieghem (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)— robvanmieghem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment They are well known by who? Nothing in the article indicates this. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Siacoin is a great piece of software that allows people to share files easily in an anonymous way free from surveillance. It is a leading project in its industry and has partnered with the HP minebox project which is quite big. Sia his constantly being worked on and has a large community.alexpimania (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— alexpimania (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete A WP:BEFORE internet search has not produced any substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. There is a company that uses a similar name but it's not the same as the subject of this article. I've noted that two of the users above, robvanmieghem and alexpimania are Single Purpose accounts working with the creator of the article. As a side note, the speed of filing an AfD has no bearing on any discussion - I don't know how long people really expect articles about non-notable subjects to remain on Wikipedia but there's no minimum cooling off period, particularly in the case of an article that's promotional in nature. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The sia website is sia.tech. It is running and there are currently hundreds of users of Sia. There will soon be a lot more thoug as a result of the new minebox collaboration.alexpimania (talk) 2:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep Sia is a notable application and cloud storage network. It is the first, fully functional decentralized, peer-to-peer, zero-knowledge cloud storage network. The complexities of building this platform cannot be underestimated. The lead-developers of the software, Nebuluous Inc., was recently highlighted as a Top 2017 Boston area startup. They received $750,000 in venture capital seed funding in 2016. One of the lead-developers, David Vorvick, is a respected authority on blockchain technology and has spoken at several conferences on topics such as distributed storage and blockchain optimizations. None of the article authors, including myself, are affiliated with Nebuluous Inc in any capacity. Pmknutsen (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, how do you know that the other authors aren't affiliated with the company unless you're all working together on this article, about a niche software product that isn't mentioned in any reliable sources? That's very strange. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, your assertion that Sia is a "niche" software that isn't mentioned in "any reliable source" is provably false. You can find media coverage of Sia here, here and here among other places. I can only assume that your internet search came up empty as a search for "Sia" only shows hits on a popular singer called "Sia". I know that the other author is not affiliated with Nebuluous Inc because s/he is not listed as an employee. I am not affiliated with Nebuluous Inc. either, in any capacity whatsoever. I have not been paid by them, or asked by them, to contribute to this article. Other than this, your assertion that I am lying about my non-affiliation with Nebuluous Inc. is offensive and comes off as bitey. pmknutsen (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let me get "bitey" out of the way - that's for new editors and you've been here since 2015. Secondly, you have access to a list of employees but you have no connection to the company? Exemplo347 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is public information (if you care to look). For company employees, see here, here, and here. Which one of us is either of those people? pmknutsen (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have no way of knowing how many people work for or on behalf of this company, and you have no way of knowing who another editor does or doesn't work for, or on behalf of. Let's just leave it there. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I was initially supportive of userfication it has become clear this is being used solely for promotion, and User:alexpimania has been blocked indefinitely for being a spam/advertising-only account. Garchy (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above comments. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 19:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rezonansowy: do you mind clarifying which comment(s) you are referring to? As Exemplo347 pointed out, there seem to be a number of SPAs commenting in this AfD that aren't using actual deletion/keep criteria, so I'm confused as to what this would fall under? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: Sure. I mean that the present shape of this article after cleanup is IMO enough fine-sourced to be kept as a stub. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 21:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well color me doubly confused because you originally said keep before before the article was cleaned up... so which keep was it that you agreed with as the article previously stood? (also I realized after editing this how rude it may have come off, wasn't my intention, just confused as to how you agree with the article as it currently stands being subject to your original keep.) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right. I wanted to clean it myself, but another editor has made it already.

--Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 23:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure what notability is established based on the sources given.
1. https://github.com/NebulousLabs/Sia/blob/master/LICENSE - the license for Sia which is not coverage and certainly doesn't establish anything about Sia/Nebulous in the way of notability.
2. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/nebulous-llc#/entity - This establishes that it exists.
3. https://nxtforum.org/alternate-cryptocurrencies/sia-official-nxt-thread/ - a forum thread which is the equivalent of a description of the product and a press release.
4. https://github.com/NebulousLabs/Sia/releases - releases of Sia. Again, no one is debating the existence of the product or company.
5. http://sia.tech/assets/globals/sia.pdf a write up by the creators
6. http://us12.campaign-archive1.com/?u=28542349724534dc599e8f3e0&id=a6ab62aecb a generic mailing list template FROM the creators of Sia?
7. https://minebox.io - i'm not even sure what this reference is supposed to establish.

I'm really not trying to be WP:BITEy here but not a single keep in this thread has explained why this actually belongs on Wikipedia using actual inclusion criteria. The entire reason I nominated this is because it did not have credible claims of notability and despite several more edits and addition of references, this still remains the case. Not a single one of these sources establishes anything more than the existence of Sia. And I'm sorry, Sario528, articles are never 'finished', especially tech articles but initial inclusion should at least meet the bare minimum inclusion criteria and this doesn't. ~~Perhaps it should be moved to a draft until notability can actually be established.~~ Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: I have to agree with you, this article reeks of promotional tones - robvanmieghem, alexpimania, and ~~Exemplo347~~ User:pmknutsen may not be employees of the company, but the fact that they know so much about each other and what they are collaborating on seems to point towards an apparent conflict of interest in their editing of the article. Not only does this organization not appear to fulfill notability guidelines, but the manner in which the article has been created (and the content itself) provide no substance or positive contribution to the encyclopedia. These editors can argue all they want that Sia deserves an article (the burden of proof is on them, and I haven't found considerable proof of notability on my own) - but something they cannot defend is the fact that they present a conflict of interest and should not be involved in the creation of this article - their comments (multiple from each) show that they are personally vested somehow in this article creation. Garchy (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cough Cough @Garchy: - Not me! :) Exemplo347 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! Wrong user tag, sorry :-) Garchy (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see any sources which would go toward demonstrating notability under the general notability guideline. In fact, I think there's an argument that it qualifies for speedy deletion, criteria A7. --joe decker ^talk 02:09, 19 January 2017 (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.