Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hashgraph

I was surprised to see this deleted already because I thought the consensus of the delete discussion on the talk page (which was not preserved) was that the article needs improved but the deletion should be held off. I've been trying to improve this article and I now have two independent sources that are not based on press releases from the primary source: [1][2]. This topic is notable but the article doesn't have enough contributors yet. Reliable news sources in the Cryptocurreny space are actively discussing this topic so I think it meets WP:GNG. Please consider re-opening this article. Blearn (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has already been deleted twice. There is a process to WP:REFUND it. You don't just leave a note, normally. Rhadow (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first delete was an accident so that's irrelevant. I was unaware of WP:REFUND so I was following the WP:DRV process. I've contacted the closing admin to discuss this before requesting a deletion review as per WP:DRV instructions. I only added content here to see if there was any support. It seems WP:REFUND would be the better route. Blearn (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, this cannot be requested via WP:REFUND because it was deleted after a deletion debate with enough participation. It has to go through deletion review because I believe the admin erred in that much of the deletion discussion I previously saw has not been preserved (therefore, I think, it may have not been considered). Blearn (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that pretty much every publication that mentions Hashgraph tries to denounce the Blockchain as obsolete and at the same time tries to conceal that Hashgraph is closed source and therefore can never be as trusted as an open source distributed technology. I'd strongly advise everyone being aware of that in a future Wikipedia Hashgraph article since I expect the same kind of narrative/biases pushed to it. 2001:4DD1:8715:0:8B1B:1C3E:E6F5:EB0 (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is just hearsay, media tend to copy the first media gossiping. A technology promising to replace another technology but it is a closed source instead of open source doesn't make the technology less viable. That is a consumer opinion and nothing more, let's stick with facts and not taste. 66.46.127.94 (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]