Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong authentication

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. Owen× ☎ 16:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong authentication

[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)

This whole article looks like WP:SYNTH of a vague concept that has no real definition but is also unsuitable for a broad concept article in my view. Happy to be convinced otherwise, though. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In its current state, delete per TNT. What we have is an attempt at a dictionary definition, but which is very vague. If the world has not yet fully agreed what "strong authentication" then the article will necessarily be vague, but 80% of its value will be the citations referring to all the sources discussing the options. Unfortunately, as it stands, way too many of them are citation-needed templates (and of the few real citations the Fermilab one is at best an isolated example, not a discussion of the concept). Electronic authentication is a much better article, and I can't really see what Strong authentication adds for our readers. Elemimele (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT -- this basically just discusses the term. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to pile on, but this is the longest dictionary definition I've ever seen. Bearian (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the edits from 2013 to 2019 by several editors here were copied in 2019 to Strong customer authentication and require proper attribution. Uncle G (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they can just be attributed in an edit summary; i.e. just do a dummy edit saying "changes here were earlier copied from <list of all usernames that edited Strong customer authentication in the period> and this edit summary is meant to attribute them for their work." Mrfoogles (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2025 (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.