Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CECPQ2

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. It seems like not all the sources presented as proof of notability have been rebutted, although it's a weakish "keep" conclusion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CECPQ2[edit]

[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)

Originally nominated for PROD with the justification There doesn't appear to be any coverage in independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG, possibly just WP:TOOSOON. The initial editor removed PROD and provided two additional sources, but neither of them has significant coverage of the subject (in fact, neither of them even directly refer to it by name). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a lot of coverage but what there is indicates that this is independently notable and likely to become more important as part of an important research field. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nomination says: two additional sources were added, but neither of them has significant coverage of the subject (in fact, neither of them even directly refer to it by name).. Well when I check out one of those sources [1] I see CECPQ2 thoroughly discussed during it. Now the chance of me using remembering SSL is Secure Sockets Layer is minimal but just possible; remembering TLS is Transport Layer Security; or even the difference between them is minimal and I'd probably simply say TLS/SSL if I needed write something down about it. My chance of remembering CECPQ2 is Combined Elliptic-Curve and Post-Quantum 2 and quite frankly to mention the latter in most places might to some I might know might turn the sir blue. The key point is the nomination has in my view falsely scummered the document and misled the AfD by claiming the document did not discuss the subject; which it clearly does. The nomination did not even discuss any thoughts of merging to CECPQ1 ... and I would oppose that at this stage .... maybe an expert might do it later. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark, the source you linked above is one of the ones that was originally in the article before I nominated for PROD; the issue with that source is that it is not independent, as it is written by one of the researchers involved in developing CECPQ2. The two sources that were added post-PROD were [2] and [3]. Maybe there's something in there that I wasn't able to understand, but I would be amazed if you can find evidence that they discuss the subject in detail there. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well having had a look at [4] again carefully I'd have to agree with you on Langley. The wonder of imprecise citations being made a little better slipping me up. Apolgoies and thanks for setting that out. There's better than that on Scholar and to some extent its the sheer waste of my trawling through the lot ... and the issue of no consideration of the merge remains in all events. Some like [5] (P.18) would be better choice to stand up. [6] and ([7]) are better choices. Therefore I remain keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2020 (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.