Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary Hashing Method Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Binary_Hashing_Method

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. Courcelles 05:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Hashing Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A newly invented Cryptographic Hash Function with no independent sources provided and none available that I could find - in particular, it has never been peer-reviewed or subjected to security analysis as far as I can tell. Most of the article is opaque source code. Cryptographic hashes are generally not notable unless they are in wide use, and this is not; based on what I have read of the hashing method it most likely never will be in wide use. As such, this is just promotional material. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Need it be pointed out that ~30KiB of this 34KiB article is GPL source code and that the GPL and the GFDL/CC-BY-SA are incompatible? Uncle G (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This hash function is unpublished and poorly designed. Finding collisions is easy The two strings "10608939The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" and "10308969The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" have both the following hash of length 32: "+!Yguf*aNV!P#Hiw*{*[#~*;1NfL+!%%" 85.1.57.131 (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wow. Just amazed that someone would even consider source code a viable portion of an encyclopedia article. No third party sources indicating notability. OP is dead on. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2010 (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.