Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crypto++


 * 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 '''Snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)'''

Crypto++

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:NN product. Government certification doesn't make it notable. Toddst1 (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep . I admit there are some WP:NPOV issues in the language of the article, but I think there is enough substance to this to make it notable. A software library which has survived 15 years and is still in use in somewhat notable in and of itself (compare libtiff). Additional Comment: I'm not sure I agree with the allegation of conflict of interest on the part of the article author; the edit history is certainly not a single-purpose account, nor does the author of the article appear to be the author of the library.  The article author self-identifies as a user of the library, but I don't think that should count as a conflict of interest.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Updating my vote on this to Snowball Keep, on the basis of the subsequent improvements to the initial article.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

--Joel M. (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep . I agree with Vulcan&#39;s Forge on the point that there is enough information to deem this article notable. I also believe this particular library is unique enough to merit it's own article instead of being mentioned in another. Other computer libraries can be found here.


 * I would like to update my vote to Snowball Keep as well. This topic is notable for other reasons that don't have to do with, "government certifications." -- ℐℴℯℓ ℳ.   ℂℌAT ✐  04:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to step in here - I'll keep it short. I could not help but notice the 'Find Sources' tool seemed to miss references in periodicals such as Wired and Information Week. And I agree with Toddst1 - a government certification does not make it notable (Crypto++ is notable for other reasons ;).
 * Is This Man a Crypto Criminal? (Wired) - Comments provided by Wei Dai which also recognizes/attributes Crypto++
 * Math Error Could Compromise Cryptographic Systems (Information Week) - Comments provided by Wei Dai which also recognizes/attributes Crypto++
 * Groove Software Obtains Key Government Security Validations - Recognizes/attributes Crypto++
 * Commercial Products Using Crypto++
 * Noncommercial Projects Using Crypto++
 * FIPS Validated Cryptographic Module, Certificate 819
 * FIPS Validated Cryptographic Module, Certificate 562
 * FIPS Validated Cryptographic Module, Certificate 343

Jeffrey Walton (submitter of the article) Noloader (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Also, as someone with some knowledge in this area, this is a very established library in cryptography. There are plenty of sources; its often cited as a source in scholarly papers, and is recommended in various courses as the crypto lib of choice.      - just a few, there are tons out there. Ryan Norton 08:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, as a note, there isn't a conflict of interest in a strict sense, it's exactly how someone new to wikipedia and a user of the library would write it. I'd rewrite the article myself if I wasn't so occupied by others at the moment. Ryan Norton 12:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, the problems with the article are just a simple edit away. Perhaps it's a good idea to have the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors take a look at it. --  ℐℴℯℓ ℳ.   ℂℌAT ✐  18:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, with a little collaboration between this turned into quite the article.... cheers! Ryan Norton 03:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I'm not principally against this article, but please read the notability guideline before you hop on the "keep" bandwagon. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Links that merely mention Crypto++ (or cover it non-substantially), links to wikis, papers that have been produced in exchange for money (e.g. FIPS certifications), articles that quote the software's authors, are irrelevant and only divert attention from what really needs to be demonstrated. Preferably the sources would be written exclusively about Crypto++ and appear in recognized publications. So far I can only point out one source that actually qualifies in the notability criteria: (thanks Ryan Norton). -- intgr [talk] 20:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here are a few more sources similar to that one:    (I'm the developer of the library in question.) --Weidai (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's another really good one:
 * Comparative Analysis of Software Libraries for Public Key Cryptography Paper from the University of Fairfax, VA. The paper compares Crypto++ (CryptoPP) to eight other libraries. [pages 11 -28]


 * The paper is full of technical information about Crypto++. Findings from the investigation: "CryptoPP leads in terms of support for cryptographic primitives and schemes, but is the slowest of all investigated libraries." -- ℐℴℯℓ ℳ.   ℂℌAT ✐  21:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Thanks, it's quite clear that these sources have significant coverage. Can this discussion be closed per WP:SNOW? -- intgr [talk] 21:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I came across a ton and just spewed a few, I should have been more selective - I know better ;p. Plus, it is actually somewhat difficult to find those particular sources for something in this field that is as old as this and is under multiple names with a random google search (note to self, use google scholar next time). Ryan Norton 23:12, 11 August 2010 (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.