Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maraca (hash function) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maraca_(hash_function)

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. Black Kite 17:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maraca (hash function) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Maraca is a hash function created for the NIST hash function competition. While the competition is notable, submission to the competition is not an assertion of notability - there were no minimum submission criteria and all entrants were accepted. Maraca was rejected for the first round of competition (being accepted would be a claim of notability) and has subsequently been shown to be broken [1]. Hence, all the independent discussion of Maraca, now and in the future, is likely to either concern the competition generally, or else the fact that it's broken. Essentially, it has no future as a notable subject. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I would merge the Maraca (hash function) with NIST hash function competition, and expand NIST hash function competition to include a 1-2 sentence blurb about each entrant, regardless of if the entrant has a separate article. In this case, Maraca would not have a separate article, and the blurb could read "Designed by Bob Jenkins, who claims speeds of up to 5.3 cycles/byte on an Intel Xeon processor".  LinguistAtLarge  04:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offtopic comment: "cycles per byte" is a unit of slowness, not speed. :) JulesH (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge. I agree with both of the comments above - a sentence in the main article on the competition will suffice for this ill-fated hash function. ciphergoth (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge) There are no independent sources I could find anyway. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not sure I feel that this motivates a notice in the main NIST hash function competition article especially given the lack of submission requirements. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and oppose merge. With no entry requirement beyond just submitting, there's not even any notability for merging into the article when it isn't accepted to teh first round. As wonky as a analogies are, I will try one here. We don't merge in biographies of people who merely audition for American Idol. -- Whpq (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth naming it, saying that it's broken, and linking to both in the refs. That's probably enough. ciphergoth (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2008 (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.