Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptol (2nd nomination)

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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptol

This is a procedural AFD. The Cryptol article was previously on AFD and DRV here:

The AFD was a Delete, the DRV was endorsed as the delete, no prejudice against recreation with sourcing.

SilkTork found a couple of sources, and moved it back to main space based on the closing statement of the DRV, and there was a little disagreement about venue for further review. So, I'm going with his suggestion on my talk page to bring this back to AFD, rather than DRV. Is the current sourcing, and/or the sourcing I again removed here as not RS, sufficient? To clarify, I don't believe they are, and notability is in question. So, this is a nomination for deletion (again) instead of a DRV, as suggested by SilkTokr and mutually agreed to. I think it's not ready for article space yet. rootology (C)(T) 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting one. The original AfD was held on an earlier version of the article which only had one source, and that was 2 keeps, 2 deletes, and one keep moved to delete. As such a close call is normally kept as No consensus to delete, when it was closed as Delete, a DRV was called. That resulted in 6 endorses and 6 overturns, so was closed as no consensus to overturn. So in both debates the closest one can say is that there was no clear consensus to delete. Since then more sources have been added to the article; three of those sources have been removed as questionable by the nominator as indicated above. As it was previously considered borderline on one source, I should think that with the current three accepted sources, and three debatable sources this is now more acceptable rather than less. Keep. SilkTork *^YES! 23:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your analysis of the history, it's spot on. I'm torn myself on the notability still, but this is one of those really odd borderline ones. I still actually want to write the article, with sourcing, since it's potentially so interesting as I said in the original AfD. I'm down for neither keep nor delete on this one, since depending on how I look at it I could honestly see myself taking it either way if I were an admin closing this one, just based on the sourcing, before any extra arguments come in past this. rootology (C)(T) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, if you're not nominating it for deletion withdraw this drama. --KP Botany (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two presented conference papers meet the requirements of WP:N as far as I can see. JulesH (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Cryptology (album) is not related to this AfD; I assume it's been picked up by the software because the article title starts with the same letter string. SilkTork *^YES! 10:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep borderline notability is still notability. When we can't decide, the article should stay. If more sources are found, it won;t even be borderline any more. DGG (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: programming languages specific to cryptography are uncommon (outside the NSA and equivalent agencies) and quite interesting for those who follow the field of cryptography. Also, a google scholar search provides more references. —Noah 05:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So, it's not being nominated for deletion? Then don't nominate it for deletion. The page for this discussion about sources is the article's talk page. --KP Botany (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a deletion nomination, since I wasn't sure still about the notability of the subject, the same as I wasn't in the first AfD. SilkTork suggested AfD over DRV to figure it out, I agreed, and here we are. Like I wrote above, I'm still on the fence, but it looks like it's a lot clearer now. :) rootology (C)(T) 06:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, please, get up there on top and include your reason for nominating this article for deletion. You have not offered one, merely the opportunity to chat with you about your ideas about sources. This latter, what you offer, belongs on the article talk page. If you don't know whether or not you think it should be deleted, and offer no reason for deleting it, because you don't have one, don't waste the time of other folks here, withdraw this and put your article discussion issue on the article discussion page. Otherwise, I request this non-nomination for deletion to be deleted.
From the page on articles for deletion, the instructions, "Give a reason for the deletion and a category for the debate (instructions will be on the page)." --KP Botany (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know how AfD works. :) I cleared it up. rootology (C)(T) 06:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Okay, what's insufficient about the sources, according to policy, rather than according to your beliefs? And what do you question about notability, again, according to policy? --KP Botany (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's acceptable to bring articles here for discussion without having a firm opinion one way or the other, or even with a firm conviction that the article should be kept. If a person sees that there may be questions about an article's suitability for inclusion on WIkipedia then it is right to bring it here for discussion regardless of one's personal feelings. These are discussions which help inform our inclusion criteria, they are not simple tally counts. SilkTork *^YES! 15:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see AfDs informing anything. A year away and it's the same issue: editors without knowledge of a subject nominate an article for deletion for reasons that do not hold up in the discussion, then the editor keeps changing his mind about the reason in an attempt to get the article deleted. One of the issues about this article was that the topic was too new. My textbook is used, and one of the references is four or five years old. How is four or five years old too new a topic for an encyclopedia? It isn't. The problem with this article is the language is too technical for a high web presence. In other words, as usual, the real issue at an AfD is g-hits.

The place to inform about inclusion criteria is on the discussion page for inclusion criteria, not on a single AfD about a highly specialized topic. Who do you think you're going to gather to discuss the inclusion criteria for data streaming cryptographic programming languages? --KP Botany (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The better inclusion guidelines evolved from discussions on AfD. Some inclusion essays are written from the opposite end of the telescope by individuals who have their own notions of what should be notable - such essays do not get accepted as guidelines and are not considered part of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Even the inclusion guidelines which have evolved from the consensus demonstrated in AfDs don't trump actual AfD discussions - the guidelines are there to assist by indicating common outcomes so we don't have the same discussions over and over again, but in each AfD it is the application of logic and good sense to the individual case in hand, informed by Wikipedia policies, and assisted by reference to prior consensus, that carries the day. When a trend emerges in AfDs this trend is carried over into the inclusion guidelines. This is, of course, a simplistic summary, as the guidelines are informed by discussions and activity that take place all over Wikipedia, and are - unfortunately, also sometimes diverted by the opinions of strong individuals who might insert material into the guidelines and resist having these opinions removed. However, AfD is not simply a mindless bureaucratic process in which articles are weighed and dumped, what is said here does matter. SilkTork *^YES! 17:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If this were used to discuss articles that individuals felt should be deleted for specific reasons, all such discussions could contribute. But when it's merely used for repeat AfDs, when even the nominator is not certain of the reason, when editors who know almost nothing about the topic, and don't even read the references, and use reasons that don't exist for the nominations, it's only one more place where single-minded editors are attempting to enforce their policies by catching editors off guard. If this were about policy it would be a civil discussion on the policy page. If this were about the article and its quality of references it would be a civil discussion on its talk page. But it's about neither. Someone had never heard of this on the internet, and it had limited "g-hits," so, here it is up for nomination, based on it not being old enough, on it not having any references, issues already dealt with. We're not going to agree in this discussion, and it's wasting enough of my time already. If there were strongly apparent reasons for deleting this article its nominator would not have required so much guidance in forming a coherent nomination for deletion. --KP Botany (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see where KPBotany is coming from. It's true that running AfDs for their own sake is policy wonking that we ought not to favor. However, it strikes me that if this article's status was previously somewhat unclear because of an ambiguous AfD and an ambiguous DRV, having an outcome that is clear and unambiguous is a good thing. Therefore endorse holding this repeat AfD as a good faith effort to get a clear outcome (and not just policy wonking) with thanks to the nominator. Further, on the question of sourcing, my review of the article suggests that the sourcing is now adequate and the topic is notable, so keep the article itself. ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much policy wonking on Wikipedia I may be seeing it where it isn't, but, this does seem to me to be policy wonking. I'm not interested in policy. I'm interested in writing good and useful articles. I hate to have my time detracted from that for something so pointless as this. --KP Botany (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2009 (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.