Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CryptoNote

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 based on coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

CryptoNote (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)

Declined PROD. Reason was: "Main source is original research, other two sources barely mention it, final source is non-reputable." I concur. Monero's probably notable, but this protocol it's built on shows little sign of independent notability outside the crypto blogs. David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:ADVOCACY for a nn topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Ruffing, Tim; Moreno-Sanchez, Pedro (2017). "ValueShuffle: Mixing Confidential Transactions for Comprehensive Transaction Privacy in Bitcoin". In Brenner, Michael; Rohloff, Kurt; Bonneau, Joseph; Miller, Andrew; Ryan, Peter; Teague, Vanessa; Bracciali, Andrea; Sala, Massimiliano; Pintore, Federico; Jakobsson, Markus (eds.). Financial Cryptography and Data Security: FC 2017 International Workshops, WAHC, BITCOIN, VOTING, WTSC, and TA, Sliema, Malta, April 7, 2017, Revised Selected Papers. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. pp. 137–138. ISBN 978-3-319-70277-3. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

     The book notes:

  2. Möser, Malte; Soska, Kyle; Heilman, Ethan; Lee, Kevin; Heffan, Henry; Srivastava, Shashvat; Hogan, Kyle; Hennessey, Jason; Miller, Andrew; Narayanan, Arvind; Christin, Nicolas (2018-04-28). "An Empirical Analysis of Traceability in the Monero Blockchain". Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. 2018 (3). De Gruyter Open: 143–163. doi:10.1515/popets-2018-0025. ISSN 2299-0984. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

     The article notes:

     The article further notes:
  3. Noether, Shen; Mackenzie, Adam (2016). "Ring Confidential Transactions". Ledger. 1. doi:10.5195/ledger.2016.34. ISSN 2379-5980. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

     Author Shen Noether is a cryptography researcher at the Monero Research Lab.

     The article notes:

  4. Han, Runchao; Yu, Jiangshan; Liu, Joseph; Zhang, Peng (2018). "Evaluating CryptoNote-Style blockchains" (PDF). International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

     From https://web.archive.org/web/20190105092134/http://xxhb.fjnu.edu.cn/inscrypt2018/ (after clicking the "Program" link):

     Here is more information about the Inscrypt 2018 conference: The article notes:
  5. Maurer, Felix Konstantin (2016). Mayr, Heinrich C.; Pinzger, Martin (eds.). "A survey on approaches to anonymity in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies" (PDF). Lecture Notes in Informatics. 259. Gesellschaft für Informatik: 2145–2150. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

     More citation information available on page 80 of the book Trust, Privacy and Security in Digital Business: 14th International Conference, TrustBus 2017, Lyon, France, August 30-31, 2017, Proceedings at here.

     The article notes:

  6. Choi, Wong Seok; Kim, Hyoungshick; Lee, Daehwa Rayer (June 2018). "크립토재킹 연구 동향". Review of KIISC (in Korean). 28 (3). Korea Institute Of Information Security And Cryptology: 33–37. Retrieved 2019-01-05 – via Nurimedia.

     The article notes:

  7. Singh, Aarti; Chawla, Nidhi Kataria (June 2016). "A Review on Strategies for growing E-commerce in India" (PDF). Asian Journal of Technology & Management Research. 6 (1). ISSN 2249-0892. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-01-05. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

     The article notes:

  8. Burniske, Chris; Tatar, Jack (2018). Cryptoassets: The Innovative Investor's Guide to Bitcoin and Beyond. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 978-1-26-002668-9. Retrieved 2019-01-05.

     The book notes:

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow CryptoNote to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for creation reviewer The Herald (talk · contribs) who accepted the article.

  Cunard (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP

1. .
2. CryptoNote is Monero. That bell can't be unrung.
3. How is a protocol that currently has a multi-billion dollar amount of value running on top of it somehow not noteworthy ?
4. What exactly are the references or sources you are expecting to see that are not yet there and why would you not just add them ?
5. This is absurd.

Aejontargaryen (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC) — Aejontargaryen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

_{Being an editor of multiple topics doesn't make you an expert. It makes you an editor, just the same as a single topic editor. Having contributors who are knowledgeable on the topic is a good thing. I have mainly contributed to this topic because of the apparent lack of understanding of the significance to the technology being discussed.}

Any discussion to be had regarding the swath of additional references and/or logical questions added so far? Aejontargaryen (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard. While reviewing, I've thoroughly gone through the citations provided and found all of it acceptable. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When I initially proposed this article for deletion, I was unaware of the publications as cited above. Dr-Bracket (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cunard. Balkywrest (talk) 04:53, 16 January 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.