Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factom


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Factom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable software Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  06:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Gates Foundation believes Factom to be notable, as well as the Economist, and DHS. At this point, the article is under development by the community that supports the software project. We will flush out the nature of the protocol, as well as the various companies using the protocol beyond Factom Inc., which has done almost all the software development on the protocol at this point.  The Factom project has joined Hyperledger, and the development will be much more distributed across the community going forward.  Part of moving the protocol out of Factom Inc. and more into the community is allowing the community to write this article. Paulsnx2 (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * None of those references have in-depth coverage of Factom. Nothing in those references says anything about the publisher believing that Factom is notable. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 17:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, the article is under development. I'm not sure how you can say a Gates Foundation announcement of a roughly half a million dollar grant isn't some indication of confidence in Factom. None the less, I just grabbed a few references to hold our position as others develop the article. We have a great deal of technical detail on Factom to summarize, such as the Factom White Paper and our Consensus Algorithm  The dvelopment on this open source project ranks pretty high in the cryptocurrency space (#30 by one  automated list).   I'm just asking that we have time to address concerns, add detail, and flush the article out. Paulsnx2 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Another reference placing Factom with other notable projects Paulsnx2 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:GNG). Paulsnx2's arguments do not support notability. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your conclusion JJMC89 that sources for this project are not reliable requires us to believe the Economist, the Gates Foundation, Hyperledger, dhs, github, and econtimes (as Starters) are not reliable sources. A simple google shows references to our project in the Wall Street Journal, International Business Times, RFID Journal, and more are not credible.   And you are saying my arguments have no merit (i.e. I asked to give us some time to organize and improve the page).  Really?  So no page is allowed to fill in details and correct issues?  That idea has no merit?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsnx2 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Github material is self-published, so it is not independent. The issue issue is depth of coverage. Mentions and press-release (actual or redressed; e.g. the International Business Times piece you linked) are not sufficient. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * DHS, the Gates Foundation, and Hyperledger releases and statements are not self published, and are independent. There is depth of coverage that we have not covered yet. And sources redressing releases from DHS, Gates, Hyperledger, and other independent organizations isn't the same as redressing our press releases. Paulsnx2 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the value of the sources your *only* issue? So my request for some time to develop the article is not relevant? Paulsnx2 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can find discussion within Wikipedia that a source code control site like Github is considered self-published. Github is taken as a massive indication of credibility of software projects in the software industry. But perhaps Wikipedia is an exception, so I looked for some such disucssion. I looked here Do you have an actual reference to source code control as self-publishing? Paulsnx2 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, Factom is a software company and not a product. It develops software products for the data management and security. I have edited the page to appear more encyclopedic, the way it should be and as well as added reliable references from Reuters, WSJ, NASDAQ, TechCrunch and bizjournals. These references clearly seems to be enough for company to pass (WP:GNG.Kavdiamanju (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All of those notoriously, largely and conitually republished the company's own PR at their will and call, so how is that actual "reliable sourcing"? Our policies certainly never accepted republished PR. SwisterTwister   talk  21:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Confirming my delete above. The sources in the article are press releases (actual or redressed), WP:ROUTINE, and/or mere mentions (e.g. TechCrunch). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 20:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing here is both genuine substance and convincingly independent and it's because this is all for a company whose sole sources of attention are PR, a clear sign nothing else exists. SwisterTwister   talk  21:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, eligible as G11, unambiguous advertising., have you declared your role at Factom as required by our conflict-of-interest guideline or indeed perhaps wmf:Terms of Use? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point, I have, and nothing remains of what I my contributions to the article. I believe the article should be about the protocol, not the company, as is the case for other cryptocurrencies and protocols, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. The contributions I made (discussion of the protocol) have been deleted at this point. Paulsnx2 (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - supported with nothing but a series of announcements. Flat Out (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom.Not notable software company.  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   12:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.