Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaidSafe

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. The "keep" opinions do not address the verifiability problems identified in the nomination. Sandstein 13:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaidSafe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entire based on primary sources.Almost entirely devoted to general principles of operation, which belong in general articles,and to unsourced claims that its particular methods solve some specific problems problems. Patents are not a satisfactory source here: they say what the product asserts to do, not what it actually does. DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I found nothing better than here and here. DGG This is what I would call "house cleaning", wouldn't you? SwisterTwister talk 15:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there are a large number of articles on related bitcoin topics. I have doubts about the appropriateness of a good many of them. , but I do not want to get overly-incvolved in the area. As for house cleaning, I start with the worst articles or most conspicuous problems. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you guys are retarded if you delete this... (random internet person that doesnt know how to edit wikipedia)

Keep I just did an internet search on Maidsafe and this article had what I was looking for (Mastercoin and bitcoin raise) it also educated me on some aspects about it I didn't know (that it was 10 years old and had raised 5MM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithd98 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi, I agree that this article is not very good but I am planning to rewrite it as soon as I can make the time (sometime in November). Also, I think that the title of the article should be SAFE Network instead MaidSafe.

MaidSafe is the name of the company that has been developing the SAFE Network for the last 10 years. The SAFE Network is somewhat similar to other projects such as IPFS, but it also has some very unique aspects (e.g. it's consensus mechanism, the way its DHT is built, the way the files are encrypted and lot of more but I would have to take the time to explain it).

It was initially called the MaidSafe network, so that is why there is some confusion and why the article is currently named this way.

I made a simple landing page at safenetwork.org. Hopefully it shows that this is a real project. I would also encourage you to check the GitHub repositories to see that project is very active.

How should I proceed for making my changes? Is it okay if I create a new article from scratch? (which I would call SAFE Network) Will you keep the MaidSafe article in the meantime or will you delete it? Frabrunelle (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frabrunelle We can draft and userfy it to User:Frabrunelle/Sandbox for example. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister Sounds good, I will make a draft in my sandbox! Frabrunelle (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now in the end of 2016 is it an article that can be put on Wikipedia? It has been really useful to know about this software and removing it was a bad move in my opinion. I think we can go forward recreating this article with the help of archive.org Anonymous 16:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.63.29.20 (talk)

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.