Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signatures with efficient protocols Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Signatures_with_efficient_protocols

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 keep. Although it seems clear further discussion and/or research is necessary, and redirecting may be desirable. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures_with_efficient_protocols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG's significant reliable source coverage requirement. Neither of the academics responsible for the research has a wikipedia article, and references are limited to the academics' own research. Did a search and didn't come up with anything saying otherwise. Batard0 (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This appears to be more frequently called something like the Camenisch–Lysyanskaya signature scheme, or alternatively SRSA-CL. Our article is in need of secondary sources rather than the primary source it gives, but there are plenty of them: this paper has 381 citations in Google scholar, and a search of Google books found around 1000 hits, the first few of them looking very relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per David Eppstein. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (with reservations): This article does seem like it could be notable, but I haven't been able to identify whether it is unique and framed properly. —Zujine|talk 15:13, 11 October 2012 (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.