- SAFE Network (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The article was speedily deleted because it was edited by a banned user. The article itself is already quite good and on an interesting topic and had sources. Fuelbottle (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I tried this now, not up to date on all the processes these days Fuelbottle (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yunshui declined. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- They still don't seem to have asked, but I suppose we can infer from Yunshui's silence that they decline to. – Joe (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yunshui was not asked for a refund, just why the article was deleted. Any silence here might simply be because Yunshui has a real life and is not a 24h Wikipedia addict. One should never make an inference from someone's absence of comment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No-one has asked me to restore the article, so there's nothing for me to have declined. Please don't put words in my mouth/keyboard. Apologies for the radio silence; we have this thing called Christmas over here, maybe you've heard of it? Anyway, I do decline the (not-actually-made) request to restore the article; since it's a known target for a known paid editing ring (as far as I can tell from Upwork, they've already taken the money) I'm not inclined to believe that any attempt to restart the article is in good faith, especially so soon after its deletion. Yunshui 雲水 07:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but move to draft space for improvement. Fuelbottle is correct, it's a decent article, could use some trimming in my opinion. On the other hand, there was nothing wrong with the deletion. Most of the article's edits are by two sockpuppets of the same sockmaster. This is definitely a G5 deletion candidate, so it was deleted correctly. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose undeletion. The deletion was fine per G5, and usually I'd support if an editor in good standing wanted to take over responsibility for a deleted article and have it restored. But this looks like yet another cryptocurrency promotion, and this one is still only in its alpha test stage. And we have a number of socks involved in this one - see yet another blocked sock at User talk:NickKoteskey as well as User:HarryLeap and User:Wbrasp, the sock accounts used to develop this article. Cryptocurrencies are mostly scams, and we should not give their promoters a platform here. Also see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll retract my opposition to undeletion, but just leave my words as a comment, as people have provided evidence that this is not just another scam cryptocurrency. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but restore to userspace as a good-faith request for a WP:REFUND. I agree with Boing! that we should take a strong WP:DENY stance with the current wave of cryptocurrency spammers, but if Fuelbottle really wants to give them a BOGOF I think we have to respect that. The article would have to be thoroughly purged of any promotionalism before it's moved backed to mainspace, though. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse WP:G5. Do not restore to userspace, per WP:DENY and WP:BOGOF. Also, fails WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, you are endorsing the deletion and not endorsing the undeletion request? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what "not endorsing the undeletion request" means, but yes, I want it to stay deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'd briefly forgotten the "Endorse/Overturn" jargon used at DRV and had forgotten what was being endorsed by "Endorse" - the deletion or this request for restoration. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As for notability the SAFE Network is one of the inspirations for the last season of the TV series Silicon Valley[1]. Tim Berners-Lee has tweeted about it, as work is underway to integrate the SAFE Network as an alternative to servers on his new project Solid[2]. It's mentioned in the new Disney movie Wreck it Ralph breaks the Internet[3]. It's been featured in Tech Crunch for their new consensus algorithm[4]. This is some examples that shows that it's at least somewhat notable and being noticed. I agree that the company MaidSafe is not very notable in itself as of today, but I think the SAFE Network is definitely notable enough to have an article.Fuelbottle (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but list the possibly useful sources here. The reference list is not creative content and does not require attribution. Good luck to the editor in good standing who wants to start a clean new article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a reasonable plan. For the record, the refs in the deleted article were:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
- Permit restoration although we usually do delete articles by clocked users, there is almost always the option for an uninvolved contributor to edit the topic. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and I'd oppose restoring it as well. This was a perfectly valid G5 and I don't see why we should help block-evading paid editors by restoring and improving their contributions. If the topic is notable then there's nothing stopping another editor from writing an article about it. Hut 8.5 17:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
