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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hashgraph[edit]

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

Paucity of reliable sources indicating notability. News search finds reprinted press release announcements; if cut back to RSes, this would be about two lines. Functionally, this is difficult to distinguish from straight-up promotion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leemon Baird. David Gerard (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- walled garden with Leemon Baird. Authorship by SPAs. No independent references (the only one is now dead). Rhadow (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I was able to find a few sources [1][2][3][4], but at least a couple of these seem to emanate from a press release. This may become a notable subject at some point, but I don't think it's quite there yet.- Mr X 13:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unfortunately does not yet meet the Wikipedia threshold of notability.--greenrd (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few hits for this name on Google scholar but they appear to be unrelated, and Baird's work on this data structure is almost entirely uncited. Fails WP:GNG for lack of in-depth secondary sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Had considered a redirect to Blockchain, but sources clearly state it's not like Blockchain. Had wondered whether algorithm might be of use in WP:RFA discussions, but decided it probably wasn't powerful enough. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2017 (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.