Deletion of FORK-256

Comment: mdash;The algorithm was presented at a very high-profile government-sponsored workshop, and attracted significant attention in the crypto community (as evidenced by the number of teams that worked on breaking the algorithm, and the fact that the algorithm was included in a standard crypto library).  I can appreciate a ''delete'' argument that says only those algorithms that make it into textbooks should have articles, but given the totality of the circumstances here, I think we have enough in the way of (albeit )  to make a solid article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:RS)

Comment: Google scholar gets "about 243" hits for the subject, most of them published research articles, with 14 of them having the subject in their title (not counting one false hit) and by several disjoint groups of authors. That's well above threshold for a piece of academic research for me, and meets the  standard of having multiple independent in-depth reliably-published sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)