Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESTREAM


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

ESTREAM

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

probably not a good idea to have an article only sourced to the subject's promotional materials. lettherebedarklight晚安 10:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight晚安 10:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've read the article and still have no idea what it's about. Techno news is fine, but this is too long, it doesn't explain what it is or why it's important. The sources are largely technical or legal documents, too complex for the lay person. No attempt to explain what this is or why we need an article about it, only presenting a wall of text and charts about the various specifications. I can't find sourcing about this "thing", so I can't begin to understand what to look for. Oaktree b (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify, is there a notability problem here, Lettherebedarklight and Oaktree b, or is the nomination based on the current state of the article and WP:NOT? Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * there aren't any reliable, independent sources, so yes, there is a notability problem. lettherebedarklight晚安 07:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't really looked for sources yet but have you looked at Bernstein's notes in the EL section? Even if you don't consider that independent it seems to point towards some conferences. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sourcing is only laws and primary sources. So there is nothing that points towards notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SWinxy (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing,  and Europe. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep.  ESTREAM is one of the major crypto competitions, the article is not much different from other articles about crypto competitions, such as NIST hash function competition, Advanced Encryption Standard process, CAESAR Competition etc. Relying on primary sources is a problem, sources should definitely be improved. Clicking on "books" and "scholar" at the top of this discussion gives a lot of additional sources, but for "news" and "google" searches one has to add an additional keyword to filter out unrelated stuff (e.g. adding "cipher" keyword works). ESTREAM is also quite often mentioned in various crypto papers, such as today's NIST report on lightweight crypto. I already added one journal article as a source, it seems to be a good overview, but I have no free time at the moment to go deeper. TheInevitable (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: FInal relist. Also, please check out the sources that have been added since the nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I forgot about this one as well, I'm keep on this also. Cursory glance seems to indicate significance in the field, as mentioned above, and there's a whole book about it in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, New Stream Cipher Designs. While I agree that it should be written to be accessible to a less technical audience per NOTGUIDE, that is something to be resolved with editing. I don't really understand what reasoning could lead one to believe the encyclopedia better off without it entirely. This would be speedy keep per SK 1/3 were it not moot. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Sources seem to meet WP:NORG which is probably the most appropriate measure (we don't have a separate WP:NPROJECT), given some of the sources provided. The state of the article is a bit wanting, but I don't think it violates any voice guidelines enough to merit deletion on that grounds. &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:10, 29 June 2023 (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.