- 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 merge to Telegram Open Network. —ScottyWong— 06:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The Open Network
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Open Network ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article fails to comply with WP:RS. It only links to Pavel Durov's blog post, the white paper by Nikolai Durov, and some random Telegram channel.
I'm also concerned that it may be a promotion of the NewTON that mimics another TON-based blockchain project (that actually got covered in mainstream media).
This article should rather be redirected to a more detailed Telegram Open Network article. Myuno ( talk) 13:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Myuno ( talk) 13:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- A tiny notice to make the last statement clear. As stated in the white papers, "The Open Network" is the other name of "Telegram Open Network" (not a separate blockchain project). Myuno ( talk) 20:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep
- The claims to the article from the user Myuno are not substantiated.
- Most of the information in the article is based on an article from Pavel Durov's Telegram channel (1.6 million views) and on the technical documents from Nikolai Durov posted on https://ton.org. In my opinion, these are very good sources.
- There should be different articles about Telegram Open Network and The Open Network because they are different projects. Telegram Open Network is a project that was developed by the Telegram team and Telegram was forced to close TON due to pressure from the SEC. You can look at the technical papers ( 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) and see that the name «Telegram Open Network» is used everywhere, and «The Open Network» is not used.
- I think that this article will have a very high public importance in the near future, because quite recently the Telegram team, in response to an open letter, agreed to transfer the domain https://ton.org and the account https://github.com/ton-blockchain to the open-source community ( The Open Network project).
- I think that the article should be kept.
-
Mourrit (
talk)
15:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- All of the sources you provided are related to the subject, meaning they are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. Do you have any sources that meet the requirements of WP:GNG? (independent, reliable, and significant) Jumpytoo Talk 22:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- The sources I have provided above are independent, reliable, and significant. Regarding independence, the open-source community project «The Open Network» has nothing to do with Telegram. Mourrit ( talk) 16:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Mourrit your statement about the name is incorrect. Check the Telegram Open Network (TON) ICO Whitepaper, pages 3 and 19. Given that, the separate article is almost certainly unnecessary, and the information based on reliable sources can be added to the relevant section of the article with a more recognizable name. Myuno ( talk) 12:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- The document provided by Myuno is not an official document of the «Telegram Open Network» project and was made by third parties. Please do not mislead us by referring to documents from third parties. Mourrit ( talk) 16:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Let me quote: "TNW has been able to confirm the authenticity of the white paper leaked by Cryptovest with an independent source". Myuno ( talk) 21:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Very dubious confirmation of authenticity. Mourrit ( talk) 13:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Another thing is that cryptocurrency news outlets and blogs seem to be considered non-reliable. That means that the claims for notability should be supported by publications in mainstream media. Myuno ( talk) 12:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Telegram Open Network - the The Open Network project is absolutely a continuation of this project. There are not two separate projects. There is nothing to be gained by having two pages, and it will likely cause confusion. If the new development becomes more notable then that page may renaming to The Open Network. Pavel Durov per this claims Telegram was forced to stop. But then there is the fact the name change and Telegram stepping back was planned in 2018, see. Jonpatterns ( talk) 18:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- «Telegram Open Network» and «The Open Network» are two different projects, like BSD and FreeBSD. If the articles «Telegram Open Network» and «The Open Network» will be combined, then people will think that this is the same project and this will obfuscate them. Many inexperienced people will think that «The Open Network» is a Telegram project and will invest their money in it.
- Plus you are linking to an article that is based on an unconfirmed document.
- Mourrit ( talk) 13:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Currently, The Open and Telegram Open haven't got a separate history or enough separate information to make two separate articles useful. One is simply a continuation of the other. If the Telegram Open page is renamed The Open page this might better reflect the current situation. With BSD and FreeBSD both projects ran concurrently, have substantial separate history and are highly notable - see BSD timeline . Also, consider the example of Gill, Sodipodi and Inkscape drawing programs. Sodipodi and Inkscape have there own pages as there is enough separate info. However, Gill doesn't have a separate page from Sodipodi; just a mention in the development. Jonpatterns ( talk) 12:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Telegram Open Network: Per reasons above. ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 11:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Classic catch-22 situation. - Hatchens ( talk) 16:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ Hatchens: please expand on how this issue is a Catch-22 situation. Jonpatterns ( talk) 15:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I think I have worked out what is going on, after searching "The Open Network" and "Free TON". There are two projects continuing Telegram TON, Free TON and TON Foundation (aka Newton). This page mainly deals with "TON Foundation" where as "Free TON" only is mentioned on Telegram TON page. I've edited page to reflect this. Merge still stands, both Free TON and TON Foundation should be on Telegram page for now. ref Jonpatterns ( talk) 20:18, 28 July 2021 (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.
- 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 merge to Telegram Open Network. —ScottyWong— 06:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The Open Network
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Open Network ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article fails to comply with WP:RS. It only links to Pavel Durov's blog post, the white paper by Nikolai Durov, and some random Telegram channel.
I'm also concerned that it may be a promotion of the NewTON that mimics another TON-based blockchain project (that actually got covered in mainstream media).
This article should rather be redirected to a more detailed Telegram Open Network article. Myuno ( talk) 13:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Myuno ( talk) 13:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- A tiny notice to make the last statement clear. As stated in the white papers, "The Open Network" is the other name of "Telegram Open Network" (not a separate blockchain project). Myuno ( talk) 20:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep
- The claims to the article from the user Myuno are not substantiated.
- Most of the information in the article is based on an article from Pavel Durov's Telegram channel (1.6 million views) and on the technical documents from Nikolai Durov posted on https://ton.org. In my opinion, these are very good sources.
- There should be different articles about Telegram Open Network and The Open Network because they are different projects. Telegram Open Network is a project that was developed by the Telegram team and Telegram was forced to close TON due to pressure from the SEC. You can look at the technical papers ( 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) and see that the name «Telegram Open Network» is used everywhere, and «The Open Network» is not used.
- I think that this article will have a very high public importance in the near future, because quite recently the Telegram team, in response to an open letter, agreed to transfer the domain https://ton.org and the account https://github.com/ton-blockchain to the open-source community ( The Open Network project).
- I think that the article should be kept.
-
Mourrit (
talk)
15:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- All of the sources you provided are related to the subject, meaning they are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. Do you have any sources that meet the requirements of WP:GNG? (independent, reliable, and significant) Jumpytoo Talk 22:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- The sources I have provided above are independent, reliable, and significant. Regarding independence, the open-source community project «The Open Network» has nothing to do with Telegram. Mourrit ( talk) 16:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Mourrit your statement about the name is incorrect. Check the Telegram Open Network (TON) ICO Whitepaper, pages 3 and 19. Given that, the separate article is almost certainly unnecessary, and the information based on reliable sources can be added to the relevant section of the article with a more recognizable name. Myuno ( talk) 12:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- The document provided by Myuno is not an official document of the «Telegram Open Network» project and was made by third parties. Please do not mislead us by referring to documents from third parties. Mourrit ( talk) 16:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Let me quote: "TNW has been able to confirm the authenticity of the white paper leaked by Cryptovest with an independent source". Myuno ( talk) 21:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Very dubious confirmation of authenticity. Mourrit ( talk) 13:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Another thing is that cryptocurrency news outlets and blogs seem to be considered non-reliable. That means that the claims for notability should be supported by publications in mainstream media. Myuno ( talk) 12:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Telegram Open Network - the The Open Network project is absolutely a continuation of this project. There are not two separate projects. There is nothing to be gained by having two pages, and it will likely cause confusion. If the new development becomes more notable then that page may renaming to The Open Network. Pavel Durov per this claims Telegram was forced to stop. But then there is the fact the name change and Telegram stepping back was planned in 2018, see. Jonpatterns ( talk) 18:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- «Telegram Open Network» and «The Open Network» are two different projects, like BSD and FreeBSD. If the articles «Telegram Open Network» and «The Open Network» will be combined, then people will think that this is the same project and this will obfuscate them. Many inexperienced people will think that «The Open Network» is a Telegram project and will invest their money in it.
- Plus you are linking to an article that is based on an unconfirmed document.
- Mourrit ( talk) 13:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Currently, The Open and Telegram Open haven't got a separate history or enough separate information to make two separate articles useful. One is simply a continuation of the other. If the Telegram Open page is renamed The Open page this might better reflect the current situation. With BSD and FreeBSD both projects ran concurrently, have substantial separate history and are highly notable - see BSD timeline . Also, consider the example of Gill, Sodipodi and Inkscape drawing programs. Sodipodi and Inkscape have there own pages as there is enough separate info. However, Gill doesn't have a separate page from Sodipodi; just a mention in the development. Jonpatterns ( talk) 12:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Telegram Open Network: Per reasons above. ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 11:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Classic catch-22 situation. - Hatchens ( talk) 16:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ Hatchens: please expand on how this issue is a Catch-22 situation. Jonpatterns ( talk) 15:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I think I have worked out what is going on, after searching "The Open Network" and "Free TON". There are two projects continuing Telegram TON, Free TON and TON Foundation (aka Newton). This page mainly deals with "TON Foundation" where as "Free TON" only is mentioned on Telegram TON page. I've edited page to reflect this. Merge still stands, both Free TON and TON Foundation should be on Telegram page for now. ref Jonpatterns ( talk) 20:18, 28 July 2021 (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.