Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DECIM


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

DECIM

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has been around for over 10 years and there's still no sources other than some published papers, no secondary sources, nothing showing notability. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. There are not many sources because the algorithm didn't pass eSTREAM. Anyway, I can see at least 1 secondary source. This paper is one of the main reasons why the algorithm is not popular, but it is a good source: https://www.ecrypt.eu.org/stream/papersdir/049.pdf Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not an expert in the subject but how does a published paper without news coverage indicate notability? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion the most notable thing about DECIM is that it was broken before being approved. That paper is renown in the Cryptanalysis field. The expected computational complexity of an attack was O(2^80), while the researchers found that the actual complexity was O(2^21). Bad fame is fame. That's why I don't like the idea of deleting the article. There are more papers, like this one: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/288306103.pdf Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is not news coverage. Notability is demonstrated by people other than the creators/inventors/subjects noting something and writing about it independently themselves, in depth.  Newspapers are some of the people who can do this, but they are far from the only ones.  "No sources other than these sources." is not no sources, either.  Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. CanadianOtaku  Talk Page 21:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article adequately sourced to pass notability. There's room enough on the server for these sorts of niche articles and an encyclopedia full of reality TV stars and third rate sportspersons is not totality of the encyclopedia should be about. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * (already cited in the article and the same as the PDF raw hyperlinked above) is reliable and independent, but by itself is thin. Bernstein at https://cr.yp.to/streamciphers.html addresses eSTREAM in toto, rather than DECIM in depth, which is listed as one of many at https://cr.yp.to/streamciphers/attacks.html#decim-v1 .  I always want multiple independent sources, and the aforemented claimed renown can be demonstrated by more than that just 1 paper, after 15 years of people purportedly pointing to this as a renowned example. However, I do not think that this is in fact the case.  I cannot find people pointing to this as a renowned example. Instead, the introduction of  (also already cited in the article) indicates that there is a significant body of independent literature addressing the revised versions of this subject (v2 and -128).  Other things such as https://www.ijcsit.com/docs/Volume%202/vol2issue6/ijcsit2011020662.pdf (which isn't much but is something) and https://eprint.iacr.org/2008/128 also turn up on a search.  This subject is not renowned, it is documented on its merits, and the aforementioned  does so in depth, both the original algorithm(s) and a summary of the subsequent literature to 2012.  This is a poor article, that is uninformative and superficial.  But then that is true of so much of Wikipedia, and Project:deletion policy is that we keep in the hopes that one day someone will take  and the like in hand and actually improve this stub. Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. As demonstrated by above sources, this algorithm has significant third-party coverage. Most modern cryptography is built on idea of learning about past mistakes (to avoid them in new designs). This article deffinitelly needs improvement, but not WP:TNT.Anton.bersh (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2021 (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.