Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrustPlus


 * 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 move to draft space at Draft:TRUSTplus in order to preserve the history. Once references to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" have been supplied to establish Notability, permission should be sought at WP:Deletion review before the article is restored to the main encyclopedia. Anyone connected with TRUSTplus is requested to read the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

TrustPlus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This software product appears un-notable. Both academic papers cited in the references pre-date the implementation of any form of cryptocurrency and most the rest are from user generated sources which fail WP:RS. Speedy and PROD have both been disputed by contributors to the article. Dolescum (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  00:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We are trying to produce a page about a significant digital currency. The Currency is notable because our community is the first community that understands people don’t trust Crypto Currency. Our first step is to define what people want. Our second step was to grow or produce the coin. We are developing it and there are people that are going to need a neutral party to explain what TRUSTPLUS is. I see the benefits Wikipedia's community to keep tabs on our work, but to just hard delete doesn’t support Wikipedia. Give us some slack courtesy of WP:WP_DNB We will get what you need. MitchellMint (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cryptoarticles.com/crypto-news/trustplus-gives-a-new-meaning-to-anonymity-by-using-automatic-transactions is a WP:RS MitchellMint (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: If it is significant, you should be able to support that claim with reliable sources giving in depth coverage of the subject, as per WP:GNG and WP:V. Your response implies that you wish to promote your software, against wikipedia policy. I note from your talkpage history you have already been advised of the projects conflict of interest policies. As far as WP:DNB goes, you might want to check out the section on "Common newcomer errors". Dolescum (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Promotional article created by parties with WP:COI. Speedy delete tags removed repetitively by parties with WP:COI. This should have been deleted before the AfD was created but the db tags were removed. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:NSOFT, WP:PROMO, etc. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. As I explained on the article's Talk page, this does not preclude the development of a page to explain this technology/product/service, if and when it becomes notable enough to deserve an article per WP:GNG (and there are sufficient sources that establish its notability per WP:RS and WP:V).  So far, most of the sources appear to be authored by the same people who are developing the article here (hence are not RS) and/or do not even mention the subject of the article (hence are irrelevant to its notability and useless as references).  Also WP:CRYSTAL is applicable.   Dwpaul   Talk   02:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep.Who says the RS is not V? You need proof.  "sources appear to be authored by the same people who are developing the article"   Have you done any research?  I have had assumptions, classifications and judgment about this article.  Now I have to deal with appearances.  Nothing about this deletion(s) has had any proof.  Its not even complete, but what is written is cited.  We have other pages starting to link to ours.  I didn't create the article.  Why was I ever COI?  MitchellMint (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC) — MitchellMint (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The burden is on the editor creating or editing an article to provide evidence in support of the article's notability or the edit's factual basis. It is not on those who challenge that notability or factual basis. See WP:BURDEN. Your COI came into view when code you authored was cited as a reference for the article, and was confirmed by statements (such as the one above) in which you self-identify as a developer of the subject of this article.  Dwpaul  Talk   04:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the problem is WP:BURDEN then there should be a WP:CHALLENGE. Deleting everyone's work seems excessive, if it is just my WP:RS is in question.  My COI came up after I cut copy pasted something ridiculous and removed it soon after I discovered the sandbox.  n00b mistake and I take full responsibility.  I am not a developer, I am an executive producer for an open source software project.  Im the guy in charge of the money.  I don't code, nor am I an investor.  Another assumption among several.  MitchellMint (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also I did not create the article. I did add a couple lines with citations that I would argue are WP:RS  MitchellMint (talk)
 * This AfD discussion is the challenge you anticipate, as its basis is that the references given do not adequately demonstrate the notability of the subject. See the first entry above for details. They may be adequate to support specific assertions to which they are attached, but if they do not establish the notability of the subject, the entire article is subject to deletion under WP:GNG.  Dwpaul  Talk   04:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing that up. Can you give me a suggestion of what will help keep this article? MitchellMint (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I really think that the nominator's statement, my statement just above, and the numerous links to Wikipedia policy found on this page should make it abundantly clear what is necessary for this article to avoid deletion. (As previously explained, if it is not yet possible to do so given limited sources, the article can still be developed; just not in Wikipedia mainspace.)  Dwpaul   Talk   05:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to keep the page while developing, and some sort of link? I understand the need of removing promotional material.  The intention of of our article is to inform.  I noticed many other altcoins are getting deleted immediately.  RS still puzzles me, but it is clear it is not the same as citing or references.  Litecoin was able to survive five nominations for deletion.  Can you explain to me mainspace?  Is it a place for developing a page?  I would like my community to be able to continue to work on the article and some sort of link. I am trying to be transparent.  MitchellMint (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is possible to work on the article in Draftspace, which means that it's no longer a part of the public encyclopedia (will not be returned in a search and cannot be linked to/from other public articles or categories) but any editor (who knows of it) can continue to contribute to it until such time as it is ready for publication (sufficient independent references existing to support notability and any claim in the article). I have already suggested this (several times now).   Dwpaul   Talk   17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The movement of an article from mainspace to Draftspace for further development under the conditions we have here is described at WP:Draftspace under the heading Incubation. See Article Incubator for discussion of this process. Dwpaul  Talk   17:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment re the comment by User:MitchellMint that "The Currency is notable because": As I responded at Talk:TrustPlus to User:Sergio.Tafur: "The word 'notable' as used on Wikipedia is unfortunately misleading. For purposes of evaluating a topic's notability under the guidelines, instead of arguing among us whether the topic has characteristics that make it notable, we look for external evidence that it has been found notable. The predominate form of evidence used takes the form of substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic."


 * Delete I originally PRODded the article for a lack of evident notability. The list of references that have been added since haven't led me to feel otherwise, nearly all of them being (a) related, (b) routine, or (c) included for the purpose of verifying something said in the article but not mentioning TrustPlus. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr Plazo, you have no credibility in this matter, posted all over my personal page and have deleted members of my community. Your vote is tainted.  User Dwpaul is at least making an effort to help keep this page.  MitchellMint (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "deleted members of my community", or what you think "taints" my "vote", or what your basis is for your decree as to my credibility as a person having an understanding of and experience with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * Dwpaul seems to be saying the same things that I've said. He has confirmed what I said to you about the nature of your COI, though you took great issue when I explained it to you. He has explained to you, just as I have, that signs of notability necessary for keeping the article are missing. As for "making an effort to help keep this page", another thing I said to Mr. Tafur was "It would be helpful if you cited more qualifying references to confirm the notability of TrustPlus." That was, indeed, after I had run my own Google search to see whether I could find such sources myself. If I had, then I would have supported keeping the article. So please desist from implying that I have no interest in being helpful. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am no more or less interested in the survival of the subject page than, who has just as much credibility (and influence on this proceeding) as any other editor. We are both trying to explain what is necessary for the article to remain, and for the most part we have said the same things.  Dwpaul  Talk   17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment.this is an RS correct? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellMint (talk • contribs) 14:38, 27 July 2014
 * Wikipedia articles are never reliable sources. For the most part it is unknown who has written any of them. At any given moment an article can contain false or unverifiable or highly subjective content. However, a well-sourced article will provide references to reliable sources among which some may the support you are looking for. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering that the only mention of TrustPlus (a row in a table listing cryptocurrencies) was just introduced to that article in an edit made yesterday, and you are the editor who introduced it to that article, no, even if Wikipidia articles could be used as sources this would do nothing to establish the notability of this subject. You see, this is the problem; so far, virtually anything found that specifically mentions TrustPlus is ultimately sourced back to one or two people, yourself included. You cannot manufacture notability.  Dwpaul   Talk   17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

--Jersey92 (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Your banner puts experts in negative light. Your perception is based on assumption; just because I made a widget and everyone assumes I have a financial or political goal.  You also do not have my vision of a financially free society.  I am fighting a Financial Paralysis of the 21st century.  The human logic of trust is something that everyone needs, and does not have.  I am bringing a solution that restores by quantifying a persons trust.  You can tell I am passionate about it.  My heroes include Jonas Salk, Nikola Tesla, and George Carlin.  I aspire to their level of commitment to better humanity.  YES I AM CONNECTED!!  We all are.  WP:COI MitchellMint (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It has already been explained to you that COI here is not strictly speaking dependent on a potential for financial (or political) gain by an editor, but on conflict with Wikipedia's goals and/or policies. If you insist on arguing this point, we can bring this issue up separately at WP:COIN, but I don't think it would serve you well to do so, Travis.  Dwpaul  Talk   23:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment User:MitchellMint AfDs are not votes. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete&mdash;Not (yet) sufficient coverage in reliable, independent, third-party sources. Would not object to Userfy.  Lesser Cartographies (talk)


 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.81.163 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Preceding !vote invalidated, is by IP which subsequent edits identify as, who has already !voted above. is free to add additional comments that will help establish consensus, but not to add additional !votes.  Dwpaul   Talk   23:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Told them they had to login to vote. We have a shared internet in our neighbourhood, I will have them use their cellphone. Tough Croud. WP:GF — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellMint (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 July 2014‎ (UTC)
 * No sorry, The !vote was placed in the exact same, single edit in which the comments above, which you claim as your own in subsequent edits, were made.  You can't have it both ways, and you are digging a deep hole.  Dwpaul   Talk   23:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My neighbour posted "Keep - 中本 哲史 and used 127.0.0.1" Now you think you posted over it.  I also have my elderly neighbour posting.  This needs to stop.  Keep this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellMint (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that attempted falsification occurred later, and I chose not to bring it up in my comments here. But now that you have, see the record of the edit in question at the link in my comment above, which preceded the one you refer to by more than 15 minutes. Please don't waste our time.  Dwpaul   Talk   23:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, encouraging your "elderly neighbour" to post in this discussion would, if it occurred, be a phenomenon known as meatpuppetry, which is disruptive, is usually quickly identified and prevented from disrupting a debate such as this, and can be grounds for an edit block. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"> Dwpaul  Talk   23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I created a place where they could just edit over. This WikiPedia process is not all that easy.  There should be a thumbs up and a thumbs down based upon popularity.  Ill make sure Sing knows she is not allowed to be a meat puppet. MitchellMint (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A thumbs up and thumbs down system would work well if this was a popularity contest. The fact that this is a debate requires that we express our arguments in a more complex form. Dolescum (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We use consensus on Wikipedia, not voting. -- dsprc   [talk]  00:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Sergio.Tafur (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) — Sergio.Tafur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hello editors and members of the community who are interested in contributing to this page. I apologize I have been offline for the weekend and just arrived to see this exchange. I have read through the talk page above and would like see if I can help clarify a couple of points.


 * As is evident from the state of the TRUSTplus page, I am currently working to build a page that presents an neutral encyclopedic entry of an emerging cryptocurrency that has recently received notoriety among academics, but will require time to do so due to my other academic responsibilities. I am more than happy to continue to contribute the reliable sources that support this claim over the period of time I have requested.


 * By authoring this page I have agreed to take on the responsibility of reviewing edits by members of the wikipedia community and at large in hopes of not having to bear the full responsibility of presenting this topic solely on my own. If this is not acceptable and the only solution is for me to bear this full responsibility alone, I am sorry but I will not be able to contribute this, nor any other entry on wikipedia. If you review the history of the article, you will see I have previously deleted entries which reflect promotional/COI language and improper formatting.


 * It is my understanding that wikipedia is a community of peoples from around the world that were interested in collaboratively constructung the worlds free encyclopedia. So far, I have been thoroughly dissapponted with the tone of the dialog and the repeated nomintation for deletion of my attempt to contribute to the wikipedia community prior to a candid dialog or exchange.


 * I sincerely hope that you will allow me the time I have requested to continue to refine the page with other wikipedians and members of the academic community.


 * Thank you for your time and consideration to this request. Sergio.Tafur (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No one is preventing you and/or other editors from developing an article. What is in question is whether you and/or they should be permitted to do so in mainspace, the public encyclopedia, which is where you created it.  Please read carefully the discussion above of the WP:Article incubator and development of articles in WP:Draftspace, which is where this article should be moved and edited until it meets basic criteria for inclusion in the public encyclopedia. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"> Dwpaul   Talk   00:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You did do a respectable job of trimming non-neutral content from the article. It remains, however, that those of us who have looked and reported here have found no or inadequate evidence of this notoriety of which you speak (and I hope you don't really mean "notoriety" anyway, which has a negative connotation). As Dwpaul has taken pains to explain, there is still provision for composing the article outside of the main space, in anticipation of being moved to the main space should sufficient attestation of notability come to be later. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Also: Anything which generates "notoriety among academics" should be expected to also generate some evidence of that notoriety, or a least a mention in a significant number of reliable, independent sources. We are here primarily because none can be found. If you have verifiable evidence of this claimed notoriety to offer, please do. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"> Dwpaul  Talk   01:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The additional evidence I am refering to is currently undergoing the peer review process. I understand wikipedia also accepts pre-print material as realiable. I am following up with the authors and requesting that they provide links to the pre-prints of their articles for citation during the peer-review phase. In the meantime I have created a draft TRUSTplus page in case it is deemed necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TRUSTplus Thanks. Sergio.Tafur (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you could please copy the "permanent link" for the version of TrustPlus you copied, and then paste that in an edit summary or to the talk page of Draft:TRUSTplus. The permanent link can be found in the toolbar on the left, or by clicking the date of an edit in the pages History section. The reason for this is to stay in compliance with the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses as attribution is required. -- dsprc   [talk]  01:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Sergio.Tafur (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2014 (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.