Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puncturable signature

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. Incomprehensibility questions aside it seems like there are notability concerns as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Puncturable signature[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I cannot tell if this is notable , as I do not understand it. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:CSD § A1. It is a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. We write articles to give information, not to encourage people to disregard them go find said information elsewhere. Sending it to the draft namespace is another alternative. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are countless mainspace articles I can't understand because they're too technical for me or because I don't know enough about proteins or fluid mechanics. That's not a reason for deleting them. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And I would like to emphasize that not understanding this article was not a factor in my recommendation of "speedy delete". flowing dreams (talk page) 14:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that A1 applies, because the article does establish a context: this thing is a variant of this other kind of thing that computer people study. But there doesn't appear to be enough discussion of it in the academic literature to establish it as wiki-notable. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also don't think that A1 applies, because from the references and prose it is clear that this is a topic in computer security regarding regarding a type of digital signature. Puncturable coding/encryption is a topic in computer security, but in my search, there are few papers that cite this particular aspect, and only the Zhang, et al, paper goes into any depth or shows impact of the topic. It is not enough to pass WP:GNG notability guidelines. Since this work was published in 2016, it may be WP:TOOSOON to have developed RS about it. Hence, my recommendation is to delete with with no prejudice to re-creation if and when sufficient RS become available. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above EvilxFish (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2019 (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.