Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edon80

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. If i weight votes i do it on the basis of strength of argument and evidence. The keep side claim google hits show notability but have been asked repeatedly to provide citations to no avail. The argument has been challenged by other editors who see a different set of results and an argument that keep voters dont have to provide citations per nrve does not, to put it mildly carry any strength in weighting consensus. Bottom line we have a policy basis for deletion thatis challenged by assertion not evidence. Weighing that the consensus is to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edon80[edit]

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

Edon80 doesn't seem to be a notable cipher, it's page is about only 1 line. The same designers also designed the Edon-K PQC scheme submitted to NIST, which had since been broken and withdrawn. Dannyniu (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Zero notability.TH1980 (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as so much lacking in notability that the article's own creator(s) could not be bothered. -The Gnome (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has been the subject of crypto research as evidenced by enough hits in Google Scholar to meet WP:GNG in my estimation. Delete justification cites deficiencies in the article and the cypher. This has nothing to do with inclusion criteria. It is valuable for Wikipedia to have coverage on a notable crappy algorithm so to establish wider recognition of weaknesses. Other delete !votes are (so far) unsubstantiated. ~Kvng (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The substance of your argument is that the article should stay up because "coverage [in Wikipedia] on a notable crappy algorithm" would help "to establish wider recognition of weaknesses." Well, as you already know, Wikipedia is not a think tank, a scientific journal, a research center, a laboratory, or a message board. Is "Edon80" notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia? That's all there is to it. -The Gnome (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I was respondinging to the (invalid) reasons given for deletion by others here. Notability is established by significant coverage in published research papers. ~Kvng (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kvng. Plenty of sources in google scholar search. PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my Google Scholar search only brought up 168 results as opposed to the 2,000 above, which is less than most other ciphers we keep. It's possible those 168 are enough, but its first Google link is to Wikipedia and I can't find much else on it. [1] SportingFlyer talk 05:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the first GScholar link is to something published by Springer Verlag, not to Wikipedia. James500 (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference is a bare-bones listing that does nothing to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're aware that it is not appropriate to base your notability assessment solely on the evidence provided in the article. AfC participants here are expected to look deeper than that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are policies that support both approaches. The BEFORE policies applies only to the nominator. The article itself needs to have encyclopedic value. This one has none.--Rpclod (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're welcome to !vote however you like, but WP:DEMOLISH and WP:TNT are not strong reasons to delete so I wouldn't expect your option to be considered strongly in the final assessment of this discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NRVE has always unambiguously stated that as long as sources exist, they do not need to be cited in the article or anywhere else to prove notability. Accordingly the requirement to search for sources applies to everyone. Editors do not have to throw up a list of hundreds of URLs just because someone refuses to look for sources. There are also practical considerations: under CSD G4, a deleted article cannot be restored unless it is 'improved'. Adding sources before deletion makes it harder to avoid that criteria. Since sources and content added to an article during an AfD, especially towards the end, are often mistakenly overlooked or maliciously ignored, and there is effectively an unreasonably short seven day time limit on improvements (especially where the sources are copyrighted and can't be copypasted quickly), it is reasonable for editors to refuse to add anything until after the AfD is over. If you don't like this, I suggest you modify G4, as it seriously discourages any attempt at improvement during AfD due to its bizarre "consensus cannot change" approach. A twelve month time limit on its application would be a reasonable starting point. James500 (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable per Kvng. There is indeed a lot of coverage in GScholar. James500 (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see someone comment on some of the Google Scholar hits that have been identified beyond their existence
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to relisting comment by J04n: As far as I can see, the sources in GScholar are independent reliable secondary and contain significant coverage. That pretty much covers everything in GNG. There are a large number of sources devoted entirely to Edon80. GNG doesn't even require that, but we have it here. There is a lot of suitable coverage in GBooks aswell. James500 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Scholar results capture a number of duplicates, naked bibliographic references and other non-authoritative materials as well as some that are authoritative materials. The latter relate primarily to an unsuccessful effort to integrate the algorithm into a larger project. However, none of this is sufficient to indicate notability. As the relisting editor noted, some further analysis - preferably within the body of the article itself - is needed to support notability. Just pointing to a Google Scholar results number does not suffice.--Rpclod (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't just point to a number, I also commented on their length. As far as I can see, they are *not* a single brief sentence in a source that is almost entirely about something else, which is what GHITS is about. James500 (talk) 01:37, 31 March 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.