Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CryptGenRandom

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The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Keep. This is an article on a cryptographic primitive that deserves its own article just like many other, even more so that it is clearly notable. Some of the information in the article can certainly be condensed but there is no reason to shove this off to some other article. Nageh (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saying that there are 300,000 APIs in Windows so this one is not notable is like saying that there have been millions of murderers throughout history so John Wilkes Booth is not notable. CryptoAPI is notable because so many programs rely upon it, because it has been analyzed and examined more than any other API I can think of, and because the consequences of finding a weakness in it would be so large. Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability lots of references establishing notability. I don't see what the problem is. Monty845 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. I am withdrawing the nomination. Many good points were made. Jeh (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2011 (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.