Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrueUSD


 * 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 redirect to Stablecoins. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

TrueUSD

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources in the article. Topic doesn't seem noteworthy especially in light of crypto general sanctions Molochmeditates (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Molochmeditates (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I assert the article meets the notability criteria. TrueUSD has extensive coverage in a non-crypto news-source, Forbes  . Besides being the first fiat-backed Tether competitor, and the first fiat-backed stablecoin to do monthly attestations, two of the innovations described in the article (Autosweep, real-time monitoring) were covered by multiple secondary sources (CoinDesk, TheBlock) with substantial credibility in their domain. Though not as media-covered as controversial Tether, TrueUSD is regularly mentioned in every article  and analysis   about Stablecoins. The escrowed $200 million is perhaps significant all by itself, and the daily trade volume, even excluding exchanges suspected of faking their volumes, exceeds the most-traded stocks on the NYSE. I respect the sanctions in light of smaller projects without significance, but TrueUSD is an industry leader that regularly makes news. Wjmelements (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Forbes contributor blogs are not RSes - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Darn; there goes that. Wjmelements (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Separately, I concede my COI. I wrote the majority of the article, and the article is about a product I develop. I indicated so on my profile shortly after I first-published the article. Wjmelements (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. All I see is a small paragraph among many other things on Bloomberg and passing mention on CNN. The rest are not reliable sources: crypto sites, Forbes contributor blogs and self-published sources. Retimuko (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the most-credible crypto news sources are currently disqualified as RS, that's going to cull a lot of the technical significance, as the internals of fintech are fairly niche. I accept this policy since it seems to be the current standard, but I would like to revisit this if that changes, or if there comes dedicated coverage from a more generalized news source. --Wjmelements (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge and redirect to Stablecoin. I'm slightly surprised, but yes, this article has not a single Wikipedia-quality reliable source - I thought of culling it to RSes, but that would mean actually deleting the whole thing. Is the single paragraph on Bloomberg all there is in mainstream sources? Are there any peer-reviewed academic sources? - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The research linked here isn't peer-reviewed or published in a journal because the industry largely doesn't operate that way. Wjmelements (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WSJ article 1 and WSJ article 2 might also qualify Wjmelements (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Stablecoins article, which mentions TrueUSD and covers the internals of fiat-backed stablecoins. The sources available are not up to Wikipedia standards of notability, and most mainstream press coverage of TrueUSD is in the context of stablecoins at large. --Wjmelements (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect sounds good, actually - David Gerard (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure about merge and redirect here. The source that mentions TrueUSD in the Stablecoin article is "masterthecrypto" - definitely not an RS. That article generally has issues with citations and verification already. I guess I'd be fine with the merge if the part of the article that mentions TrueUSD has better sources, like the Bloomberg source with a small paragraph. --Molochmeditates (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * oh yeah definitely, but I think that Bloomberg para is substantial enough for a mention in a longer stablecoin article - David Gerard (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made this change in the stablecoin article. I add my vote to the redirect idea here as well. --Molochmeditates (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)