Deletion of MetaMask

Comment: The subject meets  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MILL)

Comment: This is clearly a  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  and  since nothing addresses it directly and in-depth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:GNG||WP:NORG)

Comment: Reiterating what the other Keep's have said above. Metamask is extremely notable, certainly enough to satisfy  and has received much press in . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: The article is well sourced which makes the AfD reason useless. It also meets Wp:GNG|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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)