Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Provably fair algorithm


 * 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. Seddon talk 20:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Provably fair algorithm

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails notability test -- insufficient independent reliable sources that are about this topic itself. Seems largely to be a promotion for Dragonchain; note that the Bloomberg "article" cited is actually a Dragonchain press release. Another cited source, "provably.com" seems to be a website devoted to promoting the idea of provably fair gambling. And so on. -- The Anome (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - this originated as a neologism in cryptocurrency gambling; no usage I could find outside crypto gambling - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the author, I didn't think much about the notability, as I had encountered its concepts a few years before its use in cryptocurrency. I would remind people that "crypto" has its roots in ... "crypto," as in this link to a 2005 crypto book that covers "provably fair" in connection to the "zero-knowledge proof" that forms a foundation for certain cryptocurrency blockchains, and has some relevancy for nearly all of them. In my ignorance 6 years ago, some of this wasn't known. The article's poor state now is due to a lack of competent editors, not due to any notoriety of the topic. Look at the ZKP article, read the History section, which starts out as, "Zero-knowledge proofs were first conceived in 1985 (...)" Provably fair is just a subset of the ZKP. See This citation. It appears the article needs to get an infusion of that sort of fundamental and less of the hodl community. And finally, scholarly research such as this seems to be interested in virtually the same provably fair algorithms in the oversight of governments and their programming, like running a "provably accountable" visa lottery. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * At the moment it's a WP:TNT. I note also that as started by you, it was cited to a single bitcoin site - rather than being a high-quality article wrecked by bad editors as you posit, there's no evidence that this article was ever of acceptable quality in the past six years. This strongly suggests there is no reasonable prospect of organic improvement. If you could rebuild the hypothetical good article you posit using the claimed good and non-crypto-blog/non-press-release sources, that would be a start - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. After looking at the history I can only agree with what David Gerard said in his reply to I like to saw logs!.  Athel cb (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply put, looking at sources in the article and elsewhere, this does not meet the WP:GNG or any other notability guideline I can think of - coverage is either non-independent, insignificant, or unreliable. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:32, 7 September 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.