Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regulatory oracle

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. The promised citations do not appear to have materialized. T. Canens (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory oracle

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

Does not meet the GNG. Can't find significant coverage in independent sources. Is simply a phrase coined by one author of a couple of papers on blockchains. Can't find it mentioned elsewhere online or in any article on Wikipedia. Kb.au (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete one hit each in Gbooks and Gscholar, both of them bogus. An idea whose time has not come. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ball. I can't find any relevant resources other than the ones in the article, which are both by the same author (explicitly tied to a venture capital project in his presentation about it). Nothing to show that the concept's yet taken off, interesting though it is. Mortee (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this page. It's for a useful concept. The most notable pages on the topic are from Vinay Gupta, Data61.gov.au, and Legalese.com. Give me 5 days and I'll add some citations upon which this issue can be revisited. Romanpoet (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 26 January 2018 (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.