Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrustToken


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

TrustToken

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The majority of the sources are not reliable as per the standards., Fails notability MickeyMouse143 (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC) Meets WP:COMPANY as per sources Takahashi 2018, Khatri 2019 as well as being talked about within several academic research papers.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business,  and Software. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete this is more crypto vanity spam - it lacks any actual in depth coverage, particularly outside of niche crypto blogs and non-rs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep TrustToken is the developer of TUSD, a major and notable stablecoin. The article is not vanity spam. Of the currently referenced 6 sources, only 2 of them are crypto centric websites and at that those 2 are beyond the mere vanity sites and are two of the more reliable sources when it comes to outlets focusing on the topic of cryptocurrency.
 * or Merge Given that TrustToken seems to be a company that has contributed to some cryptocurrency industry innovations beyond their stablecoin project that are only covered in a few sources, and their main claim to notability is their stablecoins project, namely TUSD which is widely covered, it could be better to merge the article into an article about TrueUSD (TUSD).--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Crypto spam indeed, and source independence is excruciating to establish with crypto. I'd expect much deeper coverage to warrant an article. Ovinus (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Like most cryptocurrency anything, does not satisfy general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not satisfy general notability. SparklingSnail (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not appear notable. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The Venturebeat article by Takahashi is basically a rehashed press release and Khatri 2019 is by Coindesk, which is not reliable as per extensive discussion that resulted in consensus, specifically that not only is it not suitable as a source in general, but specifically it can't be used establish notability. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Venturebeat was considered as reliable as per extensive discussion that resulted in consensus and is written by an independent journalist Dean Takahashi. Moreover legitimate independent coverage coverage can be established through various news and books without the use of the companies own statements or website.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you give us three sources that you think establish notability? They should be all of independent, reliable, and in depth.  Otherwise I agree with all the deletes that this either fails notability or is way too much work to suss out the truth from reliable sources. Rockphed (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, Fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - the editor claims not to be editing on a paid promotional basis, but their contribution history extremely strongly suggests otherwise - David Gerard (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm about to change your whole perception by adding only one word.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Although this article needs substantial cleanup, including basic spelling and grammar fixes, the subject itself does seem to meet notability guidelines.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I the editor indeed deny being a paid in anyway because that is simply not true, not even a little bit. Of course, you are free to speculate, that is not my business. On the topic of this article, I stand by my earlier statement of Keep or Merge, while the notability of the company in its own right is up to question is less than their products, the product they have developed, TUSD, is notable as the 5th largest stablecoin with a billion dollar market capitalisation. So the two logical options are: 1. to either rename the page TrueUSD (TUSD), in line with USD Coin, Tether (cryptocurrency) and others where the coin is more notable than the company that made it, or 2. Keep the page if it is given that TrustToken meets WP:COMPANY.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing the WP:GNG. Not your siblings&#39; deletionist (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2022 (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.