Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phantom Anonymity Protocol

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.

Phantom Anonymity Protocol

The result was delete. Sourcing is not clear enough to justify an article on this topic; theses are, at best, iffy as sourcing. Having said that, I'll note that 'no google news or GHits' does not an argument make; I'd really appreciate it if nominators could put the effort into elucidating an actual reason why there is a problem and do more than ~2 minutes of research before hitting the AfD button. Ironholds (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable, no GNews, GHits appear not to be RS. GregJackP Boomer! 15:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is bad, but I don't see a valid reason for a delete. The interest from LWN.net (see: [1]) and DEFCON is enough to convince me that it's worth keeping on Wikipedia. From what I have understood by watching the DEFCON's speech, Phantom Anonymity Protocol shares a lot of similitudes with I2P project. Toffanin (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2013 (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) 19:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if not a copyvio. I removed the list in the details section, as it was a direct copy violation of the list on the Google phantom page. I don't know about the copyvio status of the rest of the content. Aside from copyvios, the LWN.net article counts as secondary coverage and the dragon project has resulted in a couple of theses about the protocol. Theses aren't peer-reviewed, but they are professor reviewed and have likely undergone scrutiny and fact-checking. I think these are sufficiently reliable to be considered an RS. Multiple reliable sources suggest that this topic is modestly notable. If the rest of the article isn't a copyvio, I would recommend keeping it. If it is a copyvio, best to start over. --Mark viking (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still don't see how these sources add up to notability. The LW.net article is a good source for establishing notability. After that we havethe author of the protocol presenting at a conference. And that generated notability how? There is no coverage about it. Two student theses with no peer review does not count as significant academic interest. -- Whpq (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't much said on it, because it mostly appears to be non-existent table napkin drawing level vaguely proposed technology. :) Nor does it appear to be developing any further, seems like it may be stillborn technology. The few webpages posted on it are becoming 404s. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-notable but references to be expanded.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Where would the reference expansion come from? I've looked and the coverage in reliable sources consist solely of the LW.net article noted above. Are you aware of any? -- Whpq (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it's kept, it should probably be moved to Phantom anonymity protocol, per WP:MOS. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2013 (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.