Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Intelligent Currency Encryption

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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Intelligent Currency Encryption

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A not-yet-deployed product by a company without an article; the existing references don't appear to be independent. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of technology-related deletion discussions. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 21:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of computing-related deletion discussions. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 21:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have been monitoring the DICE as I am a researcher for security and privacy related issues since its first publication in German and Austrian media but also in political debates.

The product is prototyped and from my state of knowledge as of January 2018, the Republic of South Africa prepared a pilot project with the DICE.

I am sorry if the references are from a common point of view, but during my research, I followed the technical and reliable documentation that I found to be more relevant than others. Also, being featured in the Keesing Journal is :like a peerage in the industry (I know it because I wrote my essay on new security technologies that could be a risk to our privacy, like the DICE).

The featuring in the Keesing Journal can be confirmed in the issue 49 preview on their website here: https://www.keesingtechnologies.com/keesing-journal/single-issue/ but also from the content preview here: :https://www.keesingtechnologies.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Content.pdf .

As for articles, there are plenty of them all across the German-speaking media landscape with different sentiments (just use google.de and search for EDAQS dice) and they include very big financial news portals (finanzen.net), :reputable news sources like (Trend.at, futurezone.at and orf.at) and even articles on websites from political parties (Pirates). I believe this topic should be covered as it is very up-to-date with a lot of new technologies and :blockchain solutions appearing here.

I am for keeping it on Wikipedia, not because I wrote the article (I also asked a moderator to review it at that time), but because it meets all requirements from your policies. In any case I am fine with any decision that is reasonable and considers the above facts. For the case this helps, we could also follow up and add more references and fundamentals that make it a more wiki-worthy article. Note: I've added new independent news articles and references as well as comments to the article.

Amy research (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Amy research (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources identified by Amy research meet notability threshold e.g. [1], [2], [3]. ~Kvng (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The claim that "existing references don't appear to be independent" is not clear to me. Could someone (perhaps someone who understands German) try to evaluate them? BenKuykendall (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what Google Translate gave me, I can't determine if they meet WP:RS but they do appear to be independent. The claim that they are not is not substantiated by the nom. ~Kvng (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2018 (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.