Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enigma (project)

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma (project)

[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)

Two RS mentions, two press release reprints, lots of primary sourcing, little to no evidence of notability. WP:BEFORE shows only mentions of price movements in crypto blogs. Challenged PROD, though challenger didn't bother fixing any of the problems. It looks like the sort of thing that should have more notability, but the evidence isn't there. David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @David Gerard: I have added some references to the article, check it out please. I feel this subject is enough notable to pass WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- cheers :-) I mean, I'm quite willing to be convinced ... do they have a press page or something useful like that? And it's an academic project, do they have peer-reviewed citations? Stuff like that. I was actually surprised not to find stuff on it - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete press releases don't count for notability, which were the sources I saw. There's the Wired source for notability which isn't enough. Looks WP:TOOSOON / non or borderline notable but in a very promotional field meaning we should be strict. Widefox; talk 16:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's two sentences about it in an October New York Times article. That's not good enough to claim Wikipedia notability but it shows potential WP:TOOSOON. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2018 (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.