Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Key Generation Via Wireless Channel Characterization Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Secret_Key_Generation_Via_Wireless_Channel_Characterization

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Key Generation Via Wireless Channel Characterization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This appears to be a essay comprised at least partly of original research and written in such a manner that the general audience Wikipedia is supposed to be written for would have a hard time understanding it. I previously declined a speedy deletion for patent nonsense as I don't believe it meets that standard despite the density of the language. Page creator has been mostly unresponsive to talk comments and has removed a proposed deletion (along with various valid maintenance templates) without comment or improvements. While it is possible that the topic is notable the article as written now seems unsalvageable. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As an expert in not only cryptography, but specifically cryptographic protocols, I find myself scratching my head as I read this article. It's clearly some form of Key agreement but I can't determine what problem it's trying to solve. It's currently written as a scientific article aimed at experts in its esoteric domain. Without a careful reading of the background research, it would be difficult to determine notability. The article so far has failed to assert notability. It's sad to crush a new editor, but I don't see how to salvage this article. Skippydo (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skippydo, do you know any other editors that are at least knowledgable if not experts in this area? I'd like to assist in this situation but this is far from my expertise. The only way I can think to help is to garner more opinions from experts but don't even know where to start looking. I see it's been mentioned at WikiProject Cryptography but that's it. OlYeller^Talktome 16:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I don't know of any other editors which have claimed this area of knowledge. Masoudg, the author, might be able to help us better assess the situation, but I suspect he doesn't understand our concerns or what's currently happening to the article. Skippydo (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem it is trying to address according to the article is that of the requirement of a trusted third party and the computational burden of public-key cryptography. However, as an unauthenticated key agreement mechanism it has the same problem of man-in-the-middle attacks as unauthenticated Diffie-Hellman, and an authentication infrastructure in the form of a trusted third party (or preshared keys) would still be required. Not sure why the suggested solution should be more practical, hence. Nageh (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; appears to be a mixture of non-notable and original research. Secret key generation from broadcast signals which is immune to local eavesdroppers? Hmm. bobrayner (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be foolish. Secret key generation based on mutual (private) information sources in the presence of adversaries is precisely what this topic is trying to solve. Nageh (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete; The author has been asked twice why the page should not be deleted, his primary response was:

"1- I am an expert in the area and this article is a part of my PhD research. 2- Prior to the creation of this article, the topic "wireless secret key generation" was not included in Wikipedia search. 3- This method has become quite popular and is in the great interest of many scholars. 4- I fixed the coding problems."

1- Original research is not allowed per Wikipedia policy.

2- "Wireless secret key generation" itself appears to lack sufficient notability to be a Wikipedia article, let alone a sub specialization of the field. Furthermore it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to include every conceivable search, but to include info that has "mass" appeal.

3- A topic that is of interest to only scholars, regardless of how many, is clearly not of high notoriety.

4- The coding problem is not the main issue being addressed with this article, its correction is almost irrelevant.

• • I would edit this article if I could; however, many of the terms used in the article are of such a technical nature that one would need to be an expert in the field to attempt to edit it without changing the intended meaning. Since this article is apparently part of his thesis ("The article is part of my PhD research"), the author is clearly not unbiased and is likely unwilling or unable to sufficiently modify the article and since it is likely no one else could properly edit his original research, I believe the article should be deleted. Legion211 (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm a bit hesitant. While the article as it stands is not suitable I am unwilling to immediately disregard the topic as being non-notable. I posted some thoughts on the article's talk page under section Main problems, maybe others would like to comment. Nageh (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2011 (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.