Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XxHash

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 redirect to List of hash functions#Non-cryptographic hash functions. czar 06:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XxHash

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This keeps getting yanked out of redirect and de-PRODded without any attempts to improve the sourcing and demonstrate notability (not possible, from what I am finding). Either delete or decide on a redirect that sticks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_hash_functions#Non-cryptographic_hash_functions, where it is listed. I was able to find a book reference that looks like a RS, but I don't know the publisher. It may be enough for basic verifiability in a list of non-cryptographic hash functions, but without multiple in-depth reliable sources, the topic fails to be notable. The article had 603 views in the past thirty days, suggesting this is a plausible, searched-for term. Hence, redirect to a list that provides context, and copying over the ref, seems the best way to go. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are wiki entries for FNV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler%E2%80%93Noll%E2%80%93Vo_hash_function), Jenkins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkins_hash_function) and MurmurHash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MurmurHash). Given that the popularity of xxHash is on par with listed hash algorithms, it seems logical to provide an entry for it too. That being said, the 3 listed pages are more complete, with fairly well described algorithms. In contrast, xxHash page is a mere paragraph, barely an introduction. It would be better if xxHash page's content would be improved to something equivalent. xxHash now has a specification (https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash/blob/dev/doc/xxhash_spec.md) which content could be used for this purpose. Happy to step in if it can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:10D:C090:200:0:0:6:3BB4 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect though ideally it would be merged to a new article on non-cryptographic hash functions, Mark viking's redirect is fine for now. Virtually none of these hash functions are individually notable. This seems about as prominent as CityHash or djb2. Regarding the 2620 IP's WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, Jenkins hash function probably should be merged a similar fate; there's a lot of excessive implementation detail sourced only to the source code. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:43, 15 February 2019 (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.