Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency) (3rd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  17:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency)


Topic has been deleted at an AfD, MfD, SALTED and even speedy deleted but that was overturned at a DRV. Various users expressed it was an inappropriate topic, but the DRV overturned the G4 speedy on technical grounds. This version has been not accepted at AfC, and history of both this title and similar ones shows these drafts will not die without discussion for deletion. This is Crytospam and it's time to delete it again.
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency) (2nd nomination)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency)
 * Articles for deletion/TRON (cryptocurrency)
 * Deletion_review/Log/2018_December_14
 * Tron (cryptocurrency) and TRON (cryptocurrency) for mainspace deletions of these exact strings. Other related titles may also have been trashed, I'm not sure.

Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Sigh. As the creator of the draft, the last thing I'm here to do is contribute to the cryptospam. I have spent my entire time here fighting it. With that said, the reason the article stands today in draft space is because the article does not suffer the flaws that warranted a deletion and salt in the first place. If you examine the post-salt nominations, it is apparent that was already decided. If there is no new information since previous AfDs (beyond small additions to the article), and no new reason to nominate it for deletion, I don't see any reason for this discussion at all. Dr-Bracket (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see a whole lot of editors who found it not notable over the last year or so. The draft came to my attention again recently and I've dealt with a lot of cryptospam too.  What's the plan to make a notable article here? Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject itself has the mainstream coverage to be considered notable. While much of that coverage is rather poor, and comes in the form of interviews and whatnot, there still remains proper sources which are being used therein. The main issue with the draft currently is that it's a stub; but that can just be filled in. Dr-Bracket (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as draft - the sources are non-laughable, this is not the same as the past deletions, this is a sincere effort to write an acceptable article, there's nothing really justifying deleting this from draft space I think - David Gerard (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per the rationale of David Gerard, and also because the draft's creator has expressed an interest in improving it. Furthermore, in its present state (permanent link), the draft does not consist of spam, advertising or promotional content. North America1000 11:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as a draft. If  wants to continue working on and improving the draft, we should let them.  Obviously there will be a significant effort required to overcome the WP:SALT on the mainspace title. Hasteur (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * oh yeah, it's not at go-live yet - David Gerard (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - At this point, I still do not see what aspect of this particular cryptocurrency is so significant that User:Dr-Bracket wants to continue to work on it in draft space. If the proponent does not provide additional information to overcome a very strong burden against maintaining a draft, I will have to !vote Delete within the next few days.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "a very strong burden against maintaining a draft," what the what now? - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the number of times this page has been deleted and the widespread belief that all crypto is a scam (something not reflected in thr draft), there should be a signifocant reason to retain the draft. Legacypac (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that one of said times was your deletion that was overturned, pretty sure you can't use your own overturned action as justification - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the deletions was overturnen on a technical G4 point. So what? Has everyone editing this topic declared any WP:COI? If you own any TRON it is hard to be objective about this. Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ... you know I'm this guy right, and not some sort of crypto fan - David Gerard (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't research other editors. Looks like an interesting read :) Cheers. Legacypac (talk)
 * Just as FYI, I don't own or have any other COI with Tron. I have nothing to gain by writing this draft, and just wanted to see it created properly. Dr-Bracket (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

02:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The replies to my question appear to be hand waves and non-replies. It isn't clear to me why this particular cryptocurrency needs an effort made to develop a neutral draft.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2019 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.