Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleartext


 * 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. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleartext

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article I don't think has enough to stand on it's own. Propose deletion or merge into Cryptography or similar article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposal has come to my attention via a message on my talk page. I created the article and so can be seen to have bias, but I expect that the reasons for which I created are sufficient to preclude its deletion in any case. The concept of cleartext is important in cryptography and communication security. Perhaps especially for those new to the field who have not yet learned to think in the necessary cautious (which is not quite paranoid -- despite opinions to the contrary by outside observers). The concept was not adequately covered in any crypto corner article when I created the article, and my review of recent articles I have reviewed has shown no improvement in this respect. Objectively, the article has several links to others, is also linked to by other articles, and is referenced to an external source. It is not, however, merely a Wikitictionary candidate unsuitable to WP, as the article has context useful to readers (especially those new to the field), which content would be unsuitable to a dictionary. Hence I suggest that it is sufficiently encyclopedic to be retained. It is certainly a small corner of an uncommon if important topic, but deletion on those grounds would encompass a very large number of article.s As WP is a virtual encyclopedia, the cost of retaiing the article seems minimal in comparison. Socially, it has not occasioned edit wars nor community disturbance so it hasn't earned deletion points on those grounds either. I suggest retention. ww (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article is propounding an idea that doesn't seem to exist outside of Wikipedia: that plaintext and cleartext are somehow two different things. I did a Google Books search to see what I could find.  I looked at the first 80 books that came up.  They ranged from HIPAA security handbooks through treatises on the legal aspects of cryptanalysis to encyclopaedias of computing.  Only one even implied that there was a difference between plaintext and cleartext: ISBN 0471381896, a book on programming in Visual BASIC. All of the others stated that plaintext and cleartext were the same thing.  All of the encyclopaedias and dictionaries had entries along the line of "cleartext: see plaintext" (examples: ISBN 0792384253 page 216, ISBN 0750696001 page 589, ISBN 0618714898 page 57, ISBN 0309054753 page 355, and ISBN 0442006497 page 366). So the question is: How is this content verifiable and not original research?  What source do you have for the notion that there's some distinction between cleartext and plaintext, as you have written?  Your sole cited source is the use of "cleartext" in ISO/IEC 7498-2.  But that standard is well known for alternative terminology, such as its use of "encipher" and "decipher" instead of "encrypt" and "decrypt".  A thing defined in ISO/IEC 7498-2 by an alternative name is not different to the thing named by the common name.  Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems different enough from plaintext to merit a separate article.  By my ueaidrntsndg, caeerlxtt is txet taht has been eyrcntpetd, but taiirllvy so, so mhuc so taht the eyernctpr mghit not hvea beoerhtd. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I accessed this article to help me out in the middle of a translation. If that is not the purpose of Wikipedia, then what is? I am well aware that experts in any area can argue things out until the cows come home, or at least until they reach consensus as to what content is necessary (which is what talk pages are for). But in the meantime, non-experts need a handy encyclopedic reference. The article is referenced, linked and clearly expressed, or to put it in other words, a good Wikipedia article.--Technopat (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.