Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secure Channel Protocol

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. The one keep was qualified enough that the delete's had more grounding and consensus Nja²⁴⁷ 08:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Channel Protocol

does not establish notability. [1] returns a few related hits but a lot do not appear to be related and those that are do not appear to qualify as reliable sources. of course, who knows what consensus will decide - maybe for the purposes of this afd forum posts will be considered reliable sources. also, i don't like it. Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Looks like an attempt at marketing by throwing unnotable cruft up on WP; the only references I can find to this protocol are in a 2002 working draft of a smartcard API, and a few scattered queries about java cards here and there. --moof (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Google Scholar search gives me 34 scientific papers mentioning the term in connection with smart cards. I am getting the impression that this technology is still actively developed and probably in current use in credit cards by Visa and Mastercard. As it seems to be the main standard of GlobalPlatform (also under AfD), this Google News search also seems to be relevant.

All this said, the article is in a sad state. It seems to contain very technical information that may be important to some experts, but it makes a very bad job of establishing context. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i would say the technical information in this article is also highly suspect. they use the term ICV to mean initialization chaining vector. all IV's are chaining, pretty much by definition, and to call it an ICV instead of an IV is ultimately very unhelpful. IV is the industry standard term - ICV is just a term that globalplatform made up. was a two letter acronym not enough for them? maybe they hoped that others would pick up on globalplatform's new acronym and that eventually textbooks would start calling it ICV instead of IV and credit globalplatform in the process? after all, why bother innovating when you can just hijack existing concepts with your own rebranding of that same concept?

let's face facts - even if you assume that this is notable (and i'm not even really convinced of that as i can't help but wonder if the links you've found are just bogus journals), this article is crap and there's no way to salvage it into a good article. of course, if the article isn't flat out deleted, people are liable to try, all the same, instead of doing what needs to be done - instead of starting the article from scratch Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever else this is, it is an elaborate specification of how-to information apparently related only to the borderline notable GlobalPlatform walled garden, and absolutely unintelligible without adequate context. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 13 May 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.