Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blind credential


 * 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. Consensus is that this is not a coherent topic, and the concerns about it being incoherent also speak against using a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Blind credential

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced personal essay. Rathfelder (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This 2003 article because it has nowhere to go.  According to the deletion policy of the time this would be a "completely idiosyncratic non-topic".  It was actually challenged as such on the article's talk page in April 2004.  It is not actually a computer science concept.  It is not Chaum's blind signatures, which are another article entirely.  It is not Chaum's anonymous credentials, which are to be found at digital credential.  It is not blinding (cryptography).  It is not anything.  wrote in 2004 that xe could not find this concept anywhere.  That is almost still true today.  With some exceptions that do not count, it isn't in the literature, which has the aforementioned instead.  It isn't an alternative name for anything in the literature, moreover. The only places where this turns up in the literature are papers by people who have since plagiarized Wikipedia, and whose reputations for fact checking and accuracy (and knowing their own subject) should be lessened accordingly, by copying either this sentence from the authentication article that  wrote 4 minutes after writing the article at hand or this sentence where it was rewritten in 2008 by  as part of a merger. Some examples:  is lifted from authentication before the rewrite.  didn't plagiarize Wikipedia word for word xyrself, as xe credits a 2007 paper by Le Xuan Hung for the text in xyr review of the literature.Hung's research taxonomy paper  still includes this sentence today.  Sadly, Hung cites a whole bunch of things except for the 2006 version of the Wikipedia article that xyr section on authentication is lifted from word-for-word. is lifted from the post-rewrite version of the Wikipedia article. This is a completely idiosyncratic non-topic, that highlights rampant plagiarism of Wikipedia in substandard computer science literature.  Delete. Uncle G (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment. This is not my area of content knowledge, but I did find the use of this term in other academic literature in google books. See here:, , ,. Not sure what to think.4meter4 (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I don't see my edit in the history, but just skimming this I'd lean toward making this a redirect to Digital credential. This seems to be another name for that concept. -- Beland (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Digital credential. Nothing is sourced so there is nothing to merge but the term 'Blind Credential' can be added to the target if a sufficiently reliable source mentions it. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Oxon Alex    - talk  17:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Redirect. "Blind credential" seems to be another term for "anonymous credential", and if not, a plausible misunderstanding that seems to get searched for even without the AfD. Using context clues and some searching, "Blind credential" seems to actually imply "Blind signature credential", which is using blind signatures to provide credentials. There is no possibility for another target for the article, as the "digital credential#anonymous" is the only possible destination for the term. One may think that "blind credential" could be redirected to "blind signature", but the latter refers to the encryption of the signature, while the former seems to be the methods used to verify legitimacy of the blind signatures, or their credentials. In this case, because we are in the realm of cryptography, I imply digital credentials when I speak of [credential]]s. I'll agree that the article shouldn't exist on its own, but the article talks about the relationship between blind signatures and digital credentials. It should encompass a subsection of an existing article at most. The article has a decent history, which is NOT actually my premise for redirection but simply an add-on. I'm willing to change my vote if somebody could clarify my understanding of the subject. Utopes (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete despite the sources mentioned by User:4meter4. The first source (a better link to it is here) does construct something called a "blind credential"; however, they are using the term for a new type of primitive, not referring to any other "blind credentials" in the literature. The second source is about smart contracts; I don't think that is the type of credential the current article is talking about. The third source does not even contain the words "blind credential" but rather "credential" and "blind signature". Similarly to the first source, the fourth source defines a novel notion of "blind credential" as part of their larger anonymous credential scheme. In summary, all these sources suggest to me is that on occasion, a few security researchers have used the words "blind credential" to refer to perhaps related, but distinct notions. There is no well-known and universally accepted "blind credential" primitive common to a larger body of work. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per WP:NEO. I found no sources for this. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.