- 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 keep. Going with the keeps here. Improve the article, consider other options if all else fails, and in the end you can always AfD again. Missvain (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- MetaMask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources talk about crypto but not the subject. No WP:GNG
Ch1p the chop (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – There are 7 sentences so far and 9 sources. Majority of sources have name in title or focus on subject/events related to subject. If your blanket argument is that all sources only have plainly trivial mention of the subject, that would be a plainly weak argument – more elaboration needed. Also, it only took 2 hours from creation to nomination for deletion. Where's the WP:RUSH? The answer shouldn't be WP:TEARDOWN, even if only one source was plainly trivial in your opinion, why throw the baby out with the WP:BATHWATER? hidden lemon (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Crypto products are a dime a dozen (sorry for the pun!) and nothing suggests that this one is particularly significant. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, making such a claim would clearly indicate a lack of experience or knowledge in this subject. Secondly, that’s not a valid argument as to why an article shouldn’t be on Wikipedia — your opinion on what is or isn’t significant is not a criteria for notability. HiddenLemon // talk 09:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hidden Lemon: why is is so clear? I don't see anything controversial about that statement. How much knowledge does one need to note how many wallets are out there? Wikipedia already has articles for all kinds of failed cryptocurrencies, why do we need articles for wallets also? We agreed to delete the article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Core, which is a much more notable wallet than this one. When Bitcoin first appeared, node and wallet was one application. But the node also defines how the network behaves, so they are not separable. This is why we deleted the article on Bitcoin Core, which is much more notable than MetaMask. Bitcoin.org has a list of bitcoin wallets: [1], how many of these do you think deserve their own article? Software changes a lot, I don't think Wikipedia will ever be able to have decent articles on them, and it will be almost impossible to find good sources. The fact that MetaMask doesn't enforce consensus rules makes it just another REST frontend to a centralized API, just like pretty much any other browser plugin. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ysangkok: I actually don't think most other wallets would warrant having its own article, aside from potentially Bitcoin Core (thanks for the link, will look through that AfD more). At first glance the outcome of merging, rather than outright deleting, Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin makes perfect sense given the inseparability of the wallet/node client. However, I don't see how that would be a precedent to consider in this case from a notability standpoint. Yes, Bitcoin Core is probably more notable than MetaMask but that's hard to gauge since it's not a standalone object of interest. On top of that, like you pointed out, there are several popular implementations of BTC wallets out there to choose from, which only dilutes the notoriety of each. The difference here with MetaMask on the Ethereum side of things is that MetaMask has been the dominant application for interacting with the blockchain virtually since its inception (note: citation needed). While the reasons for why that's the case should definitely be included in the article (if you've got some sources and more knowledge regarding your REST API frontend comment, would be a good section to add), that doesn't negate its notability generally. The additional web3/dApp browsing component of many ETH wallets gives them much more exposure to end users and therefore more direct coverage in mainstream sources than the more dev-oriented BTC clients. The Ethereum analog for Bitcoin Core would be GETH which would most likely not have enough notability for a dedicated article. Anecdotally, for ETH, DeFi, NFT, etc. users and apps, MetaMask had nearly become a genericised trademark for Web3 extensions/dApp browsers before more competitors recently started gaining traction in different niches. Side note: according to the Chrome Web Store, the MetaMask extension has over 1 million users which by itself is substantial evidence of notability I'd think. The only real alternative to rival MetaMask, AFAIK, was probably Trust Wallet for the mobile app browser (which fell to the wayside after issues with app store policies and MetaMask's own mobile apps later on). For better or for ill, that's its main claim to notability that is distinct from the example of Bitcoin wallets. I would disagree that it's hard to find good sources for MetaMask, I have saved more than what I've already cited in the article so far because they don't fit for what statements I've written or already cited from different sources. I can't imagine I'd find nearly as many reliable sources on any other wallet for any other blockchain (again, with the potential exception of Bitcoin Core). Oh, and to answer your first question, it's not a controversial statement in itself but rather it suggests an unfamiliarity with what MetaMask even is (beyond a "crypto product"), and thus, for the reasons I've already stated, would indicate an insufficient understanding of this subject area to make a generic and sweeping claim of significance or notability within the context of this AfD forum. In the end however, when it comes to policies and guidelines I don't believe this article, even in this sparse early form, goes against anything related to notability. Though I'm glad to have this discussion, @Ch1p the chop's short and (dare I say) obviously false argument for creating this AfD is the only one attempting to claim it doesn't outright meet notability guidelines. Unless there are any substantive reasons or arguments with sufficient backing provided, outside of the generalized, opinion-based discussion regarding prevalence and comparisons like we are having now, I can't see why this article would qualify for deletion; there's been no WP:RS, WP:POV, or any other challenges here. Do point out any non-adherence to certain policies or standards if I'm missing something though (I am new to Wikipedia editing). Also, let me know if you or anyone else would want to contribute to the article, I didn't intend to be the only one and I'm sure others would have more specific knowledge they could share. HiddenLemon // talk 06:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No need to apologise for the pun MrsSnoozyTurtle. Everyone loves a good pun. I think the problem is there's no additional subject-specific critera for companies and the notability bar is set a little higher than it is for other subjects to avoid system gaming. In the interests of good faith, WP:NCORP doesn't make this clear enough but judged against WP:ORGCRIT my reasoning should hopefully seem clearer.Ch1p the chop (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ch1p the chop: Thanks for expanding on your thinking. Still though, your original claim was that it doesn't meet WP:GNG, so I don't see why it would be necessary to also look at WP:ORGCRIT when that is just a stricter version of WP:GNG – unless your opinion has changed on GNG not being met. Regardless, I would still say that both guidelines are met, am I wrong? If yes, how am I wrong? If you could point out specifically how the sum of the sources fail to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:ORGCRIT, then maybe we can get closer to consensus here. If you still think that WP:GNG is lacking as originally stated, how? Your reasoning still isn't too clear to me given your first statement on this AfD is demonstrably false and now wish to raise that bar by essentially eyeballing the added height. Help me understand your position, what is it that I'm missing? Side Note: I'm unequivocally in favor of sharing more puns
HiddenLemon // talk 22:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is clearly a WP:MILL piece of software in the grand scheme of things as reflected in the articles current content and all the refences from what I can tell are passing, brief mentions. So this clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG since nothing addresses it directly and in-depth. Adamant1 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Adamant1: Clearly? Lol, in the "grand scheme of things", all software is WP:MILL, but for our context I would just redirect to my reply to Ysangkok above. Your reasoning for it being non-notable is invalid according to WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST. May I remind you all this AfD was created just 2 hours after article creation. Additionally, I think perhaps you should read the sources and the context of the statements they are cited to... "all the refences from what I can tell are passing, brief mentions." Literally two of the sources clearly have "MetaMask" in the title while most the rest give significant focus on it or events involving it. HiddenLemon // talk 03:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- See references 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10 for something that addresses it directly.
See references 2 and 3 for something that addresses it directly and in-depth.
HiddenLemon // talk 03:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an FYI, I read through the prior discussion and knew when I voted deleted that you would continue bludgeoning things. Claiming that this should be kept because all software is run of the mill "clearly indicates a lack of experience or knowledge in this subject." There's obviously a difference between certain cryptocurrency technology, some are more run of the mill then others (like this is one), and I'm not going to get in a debate about it. That said, I was speaking singularly in respect to the content of the article and sources that are available. Both in the article and from what I was able to find and read through. Ultimately, your argument that I voted delete simply because I didn't read the sources and not because they fail WP:GNG is especially weak and lacking in respect for the time people, including me, put into this. Everything amounts to "they exist and have a browser extension." Which there is extremely run of the mill and there s absolutely nothing notable about. I could really care less if the article was created two days or a week ago. The fact is that nothing about MetaMask WP:GNG, WP:NORG, or any other notability guideline. You've had plenty of time find sources to prove otherwise, but wasted it spinning your wheels arguing and that's totally on your on. Period. Maybe other people will disagree with me and that's fine. The good thing is that we can have different opinions, but there's nothing more to discuss about it as far as I'm concerned. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Adamant1: You're making some large jumps to conclusions here. I did not "claim" that all software is run of the mill, that's ridiculous. I certainly did not use that "claim" as argument to keep. I did not make any argument or assumption whatsoever regarding your motives. You're creating a straw man, I don't think anyone else would rationally summarize my arguments as "they exist and have a browser extension", nor is it disrespectful to challenge yours; see WP:ALLARGUMENTS. Ok, now to the actual issue of notability. You keep saying its WP:Not notable with such a cavalier, matter-of-fact attitude but only make WP:VAGUEWAVES at policies without actually discussing the sources specifically. I've asked others to explain to me specifically why sources do not meet notability guidelines, I haven't got any answer yet. I just gave you the specific references which address what you claim none of them do, yet you've ignored that and resorted to agitated reactionism. To be fair, your point on WP:BLUDGEON is duly noted, though (per the aforementioned WP:ALLARGUMENTS) if not for my insistence on having a full discussion regarding the sources/notability, this would be a one-sided AfD and lacking depth. HiddenLemon // talk 08:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to ignore the rest of your message because it's needlessly personal and off-topic. That aside though, no one here needs to have a "full discussion regarding the sources/notability" to whatever your standards of a "full discussion" is just so you won't WP:BLUDGEON the process anymore. Both me and other people have been more then clear about why we think the article isn't notable. It's not on us if you don't find our explanations "detailed" enough. I was pretty clear that all the sources are passing mentions. None of the sources have an in-depth discussion of the subject of the article or any details about it. There's literally no way to have a "fuller discussion" about this, because there's nothing in the sources on the topic to discuss. Let alone anything detailed about it in any of them. Period, end of story. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of multiple times I said "I don't have anything else to say about it" do you not understand and seem to have no respect for? People have different opinions about this. That's life. Seriously, get over it and stop pinging me. Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine I won’t ping you, but please refrain from diverting other discussions by adamantly peddling demonstrably false notions as “opinion”. This isn’t about opinions anyway: WP:NMO. On top of that, the audacity to repeatedly label me as disrespectful for questioning your arguments is not only insulting, it’s disruptive to the discussion process — à la WP:BLUDGEON. HiddenLemon // talk 20:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Hidden Lemon's question "What? Is this a joke?". No it is not. And please don't misrepresent my position, that has nothing to do with my reasoning. I think it's a bit rich that Hidden Lemon is trying to play the victim here, given that this whole sorry chapter began with their attempt to undermine my judgement. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – the article is brief, but well-sourced. Wikipedia core policy is verifiability and the fact that the MetaMask software seems to have played a role in the emerging technology of blockchain for several years now, as is documented by the sources. Clearly meets the notability criteria for an article to exist about it, and I see nothing that would appear non-neutral. N2e (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @N2e: The fact that it is a cryptocurrency article means we should be more critical. This is already encoded in policy: we have strict sanctions on sources like CoinDesk. You claim that blockchain is "emerging", but this is not an objective fact. Everybody affiliated with cryptocurrency has an interest in claiming so, but it is not a verifiable statement, and therefore not relevant to the discussion. And before you mention growing market caps: no, that is not a proof that something is "emerging". --Ysangkok (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is well sourced which makes the AfD reason useless. It also meets GNG to me, and it's not like its a new cryptocurrency wallet with 100 people using it, it has a good amount users, so it's notable verifiability from the refs it has. New York Times and Bloomberg are to me some of the most reliable and notable sources. All this arguing and accusing people of "diverting" and such, is not going to get us closer to a consensus at all. It's just going to create more problems. Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 16:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The subject meets WP:GNG and is easily verifiable, which is good enough for me. My concern is that this seems, as mentioned, run of the mill, with nothing that really stands out. Perhaps more fleshing out of the article is needed to properly demonstrate notability. The number of users of the subject is not an indicator of notability. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 20:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious Keep. Article is discussed in depth in several reliable sources. I rarely say this, but it was inappropriate to bring this article to AfD. The article was nominated just over two hours after creation, but already at that stage had sufficient cites to reliable sources talking in detail about the subject. User:Ch1p the chop, please do not nominate any other articles for deletion until you better understand how to judge notability. I have looked through your edit history, and you are nominating too many articles that are clearly notable. I suggest, as you are a new user, that you join in with some deletion discussions for at least six months to better understand our deletion criteria before making any further nominations. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Like Willbb234, I think this article probably meets WP:GNG because there is significant media coverage based on the current sources. But the sources themselves are pretty mundane and arguably run-of-the-mill stuff (e.g., this app got in trouble with an app store!). So, ultimately, I think it should probably stay but it's a close call and I could go either way. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:GNG based on sources such as Newsweek, Mashable, NY Tines, ZDNet, etc. What else is needed to justify significant coverage? I know that Crypto is looked as spam by many Wiki admins, but it is time it gets to be an acceptable topic, specially when they have significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC) BTW, why was the AFD renewed anyway??? there was clear consensus on the first round that it should be kept!!! 5 Keeps and 2 deletes![reply]
- Newsweek, NY Times (see below), and ZDNet are mentions. Coin (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reiterating what the other Keep's have said above. Metamask is extremely notable, certainly enough to satisfy WP:GNG and has received much press in WP:RS. People unfamiliar with cryptocurrency or Ethereum reviewing this article may not be aware, but this is one of the most used applications/pieces of software. Metamask is also notable because it is also the first (that I know of) and most widely used wallet that utilizes web3 so that users can use their cryptocurrencies to directly interact with websites, which is a novel technology. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is also related to Uniswap (where Metamask is used often). The Uniswap article is also fighting against deletion as well despite having press in Bloomberg, Forbes and more. HocusPocus00 (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Of the current version, five references are just mentions [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and not mentioned in one [7].
- Why The NY Times is not significant coverage:
- The NY Times had an article about the cryptocurrency bubble. They visited the headquarters of ConsenSys which is in Brooklyn. MetaMask was made by ConsenSys. These are the three sentences where MetaMask appears:
- "What makes them valuable is that they’ve been generated exclusively for me, by a software tool callAed MetaMask."
- "It’s not meant to be a real currency; it’s meant to be a pseudo-currency inside this world.” Dan Finlay, a creator of MetaMask, echoes Dixon’s argument."
- "They support developers creating new apps and tools for the platform, one of which is MetaMask, the software that generated my Ethereum address."
- MetaMask is only mentioned because it's the wallet of the company HQ they visited.
- The other six references are:
- CNET notes "There are many wallet options available, and we have not comprehensively tested any of these. As such, we cannot recommend any of them." And much of it seems to be taken from the wallets' websites.
- Ars Technica is about a fake mobile app when MetaMask didn't yet have one.
- Mashable and Bloomberg seem to be hype articles for the mobile app, with info coming from MetaMask.[8]
- To me the The Next Web coverage is less than ideal. "PSA: MetaMask reveals your Ethereum address to sites you visit, here’s how to hide it" "Google lifts ban on Ethereum wallet app it thought was mining cryptocurrency"
- Underwhelming coverage, nothing close to a "covered in NY Times" since that one doesn't count and The4lines and Expertwikiguy mentioned that as if there was actually something significant in the NY Times. Coin (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Coin: I think you are misinterpreting "Significant Coverage" under WP:GNG. Of course the NY Times is going to talk a lot more about a more popular topic like Bitcoin than a piece of piece of subsidiary cryptocurrency software like MetaMask. That does not mean MetaMask isn't notable. Significance is contextual. Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:EMSC are helpful here. Also, CNET, ArsTechnica and of course Bloomberg are all reliable sources per WP:RSP. They don't need to all be NY Times cites. HocusPocus00 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coin: All of those points you made have issues so I don't think it's worth enumerating why/how on each of them. So I'll just say generally, notability isn't a literal function of how many times the name of the subject appears when doing a ctl+f search. The words in between, i.e. the context, are just as (if not more) important. If an RS covers a company and interviews its founders, mention of that company's most well-known product... you believe that to be trivial?
More important point regarding the "other six references": it sounds like you're arguing against the reliability of the sources themselves and/or straining to cherrypick the references to death, because some of your summaries of sources actually explain why a source is notable rather than not. HiddenLemon // talk 04:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep NYT, Ars Technica and Bloomberg pieces seem to meet the requirements of GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think the points made by Coin have some merit, however. I'd also questioned the substantial coverage of the NYT times piece, but it does discuss it in a few paragraphs. Are the sources such that it's possible to write an article on this which complies with our core content policies? I'd say yes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2020 (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.