Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FORK-256


 * 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.  (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I could not establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;I've added several citations, and will point out that the original paper has been cited 42 times. That said, this is probably going to fail notability due to lack of secondary sources.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)  I've added a background section and several more sources; I think this now justifies a keep, and have !voted as such below.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. 42 citations. James500 (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;The algorithm was presented at a very high-profile government-sponsored workshop, and attracted significant attention in the crypto community (as evidenced by the number of teams that worked on breaking the algorithm, and the fact that the algorithm was included in a standard crypto library). I can appreciate a delete argument that says only those algorithms that make it into textbooks should have articles, but given the totality of the circumstances here, I think we have enough in the way of (albeit WP:PRIMARY) WP:RS to make a solid article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google scholar gets "about 243" hits for the subject, most of them published research articles, with 14 of them having the subject in their title (not counting one false hit) and by several disjoint groups of authors. That's well above threshold for a piece of academic research for me, and meets the WP:GNG standard of having multiple independent in-depth reliably-published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn Thank you for your hard work, and for finding so much and proving me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2014 (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.