Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HyperCast (3rd 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HyperCast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus.

Previous discussions: 2011-03 (closed as no consensus), 2005-09 (closed as✗ DELETE)

Logs: 2005-10��� deleted, 2005-06✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see no place in an English encyclopaedia for an article written in such a way that it's, from start to finish, completely meaningless to an average English-speaking person with an average education. There's nothing wrong with going into a technical depth that will only be meaningful to those with a background in the area (that's true of most of our maths articles). But the article's lead should at least make some passing sense to a normal human. This article is complete technobabble start to finish; it fails to give any normal-human view of what the subject actually is. It doesn't even try. I'm not even sure whether bits of it are as the writer intended, or later vandalism (would you want to describe your product as "unreliable, unordered, possible duplication"? In this case I'm guessing yes, that's how it deals with stuff, but a little explanation would have been nice?). I suspect that it says nothing new to those who understand it, and nothing at all to the rest of us, which makes it of no benefit to anyone. It's totally unreferenced. So even if the subject were notable, it's still a case requiring delete and start again if anyone feels motivated to write a decent article. Elemimele (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Even if it is notable, I can't get any information from the article at all. I'm thinking this is a WP:TNT situation. casualdejekyll (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- after going through the article and looking for sources, I agree with the above commentators that this is a TNT situation. Reyk _YO! 08:46, 1 August 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.