Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proof-of-time

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proof-of-time

[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)

Contested prod. I could not find any usable sources. Current sources are:

Thompson, David (25 July 2022). "Proof Of Time Explained - Is This The Next Big Thing?". TechTimes.

TechTimes appears to be a native advertising outfit with no indication of editorial oversight. "David Thompson" published a dozen stories a week, and the website's about page brags about having an office "in the heart of downtown New York City" but it's just a virtual office. The site's editor, "Agatha Hicks", doesn't appear to exist.

Drescher, Daniel (16 March 2017). "Using the Blockchain". Blockchain Basics. Springer. pp. 222–223.

This book was published in 2017, and per Google Books, the cited chapter makes no mention of "proof-of-time". This concept appears to be newer than this, although it's hard to tell, since sources seem more focused on hype than on actual information.

"Proof-of-Time vs Proof-of-History - What Is the Difference? | HackerNoon". hackernoon.com. Retrieved 2022-10-11.

HackerNoon is a blogging platform with a pro-crypto bent. It is not usable without attribution and is useless for showing notability. It is also misused, as it doesn't mention anyone named "Victor Young"

Elasrag, Hussein. Blockchain for Islamic Finance. Hussein Elasrag.

This book appears to be WP:SPS Amazon kindle spam. Not usable at all.

Grayfell (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @Gertruda Low: who de-prodded and added some of these sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Gertruda Low (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find sources that are basically a DICDEF; as discussed above, most of what's used is non-RS. This appears that it could be promotional, but I'm not sure what they are selling. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the concept is interesting, and I also cannot see any promotion. The sources could be better. Leaning toward mild keep. Possibly notable topic. Gertruda Low (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article will still need reliable sources though, and those sources will need to specifically discuss this concept in some depth. The sources you added were not usable for this, as explained above. Your personal point of view on the concept has no baring on this, instead we need reliable sources to explain why it is interesting. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell I totally agree with you. I've reconsidered the case, and now I'm leaning towards mild delete. Gertruda Low (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There seems to be an influx of obscure dictionary definition pages about cryptocurrency terms. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's not a dictionary term, but more about a concept. The page has not perfect sources, but those available are enough to overpass original research warning I suppose. --71.95.10.187 (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2022 (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.