Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hashgraph (2nd nomination)

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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hashgraph[edit]

[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)

notability not established, no in-depth coverage by reputable media exists. See also arguments on previous AfD (result: delete), which are still valid. Ysangkok (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although poorly written, there appear to be several new WP:RS that have appeared since the last deletion, and that establish notability, i.e. 1, 2, & 3. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's always difficult to subtract the promo features and "we love all things CC" gush articles from these topics, but overall I think this is sufficient sourcing. (Most of the current refs are 2018+ and didn't play a role in the previous AfD) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reputable media?

Here is Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffkauflin/2018/03/13/hedera-hashgraph-thinks-it-can-one-up-bitcoin-and-ethereum-with-faster-transactions/

Here is Forbes again https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffersonnunn/2018/11/26/hedera-hashgraph-enterprise-grade-distributed-ledger-technology/

Here is Forbes yet again https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesdigitalassets/2019/09/26/hedera-hashgraph-explored/

Here is VentureBeat https://venturebeat.com/2018/08/01/hedera-hashgraph-raises-100-million-for-fast-and-secure-blockchain-alternative/

Here is VentureBeat again https://venturebeat.com/2018/08/04/how-hedera-hashgraph-is-building-a-fast-and-secure-blockchain-alternative/

Here is CoinDesk https://www.coindesk.com/university-college-london-joins-hedera-hashgraph-as-council-member-research-partner

~ Random internet user on 6 Mar 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8A00:D70:20C3:612:AD35:1B82 (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes and CoinDesk are both bad sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. I don't really know VentureBeat but it looks like a blog to me. It focuses on "transformative" tech so it possibly not very critical at all. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is hit and miss (depends on the contributor - they do a lot of paid promo features), and CoinDesk we have down as "generally unreliable". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources in the article (except for Forbes and CoinDesk) are reliable, including the ones indicated by SailingInABathTub. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 8 March 2021 (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.