Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational trust

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computational trust

This was tagged for speedy deletion when first created, but I gave the original editor a chance to fix the article. Some time has passed and the importance has not been asserted. He recently removed a prod template. It is also mostly OR (look at the author of two sources and how the original editor signs his posts at his talk page. Ndenison ^talk 23:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge. The topic of the article seems to be a real concept in current use. Google gives 4000+ hits for the exact phrase "computational trust", and Citeseer lists 12 papers containing this phrase. Consider removing the apparent original research element from this article, and see if what remains is still article-worthy.
Perhaps this should be merged into the trust metric article? -- The Anome (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 19:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - it's a central feature of Web 2.0 and online social network systems. Lots of popular, trade, and academic literature on the subject. It's related to (but different, so probably shouldn't be merged) a concept called Reputation systems. Some other articles in the space include Reputation management, Trust metric, and Trust (social sciences). It seems the whole field should be fleshed out and reorganized. It's fairly technical so it would take someone who knows what they are doing yet is familiar without style and content guidelines. It ought to be distinct from the psychology, social science, and network theory articles because the adaptation of these old theories to the emerging field of social media is a distinct phenomenon, and they play out much differently on the Internet than they do in academia.... Wikidemo (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Trust is a valid concept in computing nowadays for example in closed anonymity P2p encrypting networks. Agree with Wikidemo Annette46 (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Not OR in the slightest. The name is perhaps unfortunate and the prose reads like an essay, but the idea is notable and sound. Protonk (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that some of the article claims made are true (like Steve Marsh writing the formative paper in the field, whcih only shows 10 cites). Other claims seem superfluous (lots of the history section) and yet more sections of the article appear fluid (Does the defining trust section ever define trust?). But there is hope for this article. Protonk (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.