Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CryptGenRandom

CryptGenRandom

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

Non-notable. WP is not a place for articles on individual Windows APIs. There are over 300,000 APIs in Windows (counting all the methods in all the COM interfaces, etc.) An article on the old CryptoAPI set (CAPI) of which this is a part, or on the new Cryptography Next Generation (CNG) set, would be appropriate for Wikipedia, but an article on one API (however interesting) is a level of detail appropriate for a Windows programming Wiki, not here. There does appear to be some fine work done on this article, and this nomination is in no way intended to opine otherwise. Jeh (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Microsoft CryptoAPI. The topic might not appear notable, but the content certainly seems. —Ruud 23:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmm.... I agree with the desire to not throw away the work done on CryptGenRandom. But since Microsoft CryptoAPI is basically a stub as far as CryptoAPI is concerned (its coverage of CNG really should be in a separate article, as CNG is not an "update to Crypto API", it's a different API altogether) that would be a very unbalanced article. Then again... Maybe move this to "Windows pseudorandom number functions" and add coverage of, for example, BCryptGenRandom? It already talks about other RNG functions, after all. Similarly Microsoft CryptoAPI could be probably be moved to "Windows cryptography APIs" with very slight editing... most of the "See alsos" in there could be absorbed into it, too... which would make for a decent-sized article instead of a bunch of stubs... but that's another discussion. Jeh (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This would appear to be a content dispute. There is enough referenced material in the nominated article to be worth saving somewhere. I'm not sure the nominator disagrees. I also think that Windows cryptography functions and random number generators, and their software components, are probably going to easily meet the general notability guideline. How the material should be arranged and presented is a matter I'd leave to those who know more about the subject than I do. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]