Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing

Points of interest related to Computing on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Computing. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Computing|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Computing. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Purge page cache

watch

Web Environment Integrity

Web Environment Integrity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SUSTAINED and the 10-year test. The last significant coverage of this incident was in 2023 and the proposal was abandoned and failed to get significant traction. We are not a newspaper. Sohom (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability is not temporary. Kinopiko ^talk 23:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kinopiko Could you explain how the subject has received significant coverage over a "sufficiently significant period" (as required by WP:GNG)?

  To expand of my rationale, according to the sourcing in the article (and what I could find online) there are exactly three reliable sources that have covered this issue from a period starting at July 26 2023 when the proposal was announced till November 2023 when the proposal was withdrawn. I personally would not consider that level of coverage to be significant enough coverage over an extended period of time for the subject matter. There has been no RS coverage of the issue since, something that is expected of similar topics in web privacy (see for example Client Hints, or the Privacy Sandbox both of which had similar negative pushback but has had more sustained coverage due to the fact that they were implemented in Chrome). Sohom (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox (Amiga demogroup)

Equinox (Amiga demogroup) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. Surprisingly, there isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu].

I am also bundling the disk magazine European Top 20 published by Equinox in this nomination. toweli (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. toweli (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeWlers

KeWlers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, and Finland. toweli (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melon Dezign

Melon Dezign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There is significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], but that's only one source of unclear reliability. toweli (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Denmark, and France. toweli (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronos (pretrained model)

Chronos (pretrained model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written like a advertisement, no RS found. MarkTechPost that is linked in the article is a AI media platform which would land it squarely in unreliability land. Sohom (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Filled with techno-words, I'm still not sure what this is or what it does. Regardless, there are two hits, the one used in the article and another PR item. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely promotional, lacking sources, and manages to still be pretty vague despite an impressive amount of jargon. No RS to be seen. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, no need for a promo page. Artem.G (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notemaker

Notemaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and the article only links to primary sources. toweli (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Only links I find are the Clairefontaine Notemaker notebook, nothing for this C64 software. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a general term, notemaker is closer to a dictionary entry rather to an encyclopedia subject. There is not enough informations to identify the hinted C64 applications (search in C64 magazines online left no clues). Articles may be created for respective applications later (eg. DocViewer may be notable). We simply do not have any sources for an article about the "Notemaker" subject. Pavlor (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is written in an advertising and promotional style. There are evaluative judgments without confirmation of this evaluation--Saul McGill (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, JavaScript Edition

Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, JavaScript Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The book is notable only in its relation to Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Two out of three sources (1 and 3) are primary, source 2 does not mention the book (source is from 2011, and the book is from 2022). It maybe notable enough for ~2 sentences in the SICP article. Artem.G (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Computing. Artem.G (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs This book is an adaption of the original book that is the subject of the article I have linked to. No need for a separate article — Iadmc♫^talk  11:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: While there are book reviews (This one in an online journal) [1], I'm not sure this would pass notability for books. Oaktree b (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Even if we had more sources about this edition specifically (this has some usable material, for example), it just wouldn't make sense to give it a separate page. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Static Line (magazine)

Static Line (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and the article only links to primary sources. toweli (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Music, Computing, and Internet. toweli (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 15292

ISO 15292 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 17:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radix economy

Radix economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The equation used within the article, which also happens to be the same equation the rest of the article and the tables within it are based around, incorrectly multiplies by b instead of log(b). This leads to the assumption that the leading digit can be 0, which is not typical for human use as the leading digit normally contains less information than the other digits, and results in the conclusion that base e (or in a simplified view, base 3, ternary) has the lowest radix economy. If this issue is corrected, the function decreases instead of having a minimum at e, and the lowest radix economy for human use instead goes to base 2, binary.

Fixing this correction would require a fundamental rewrite to the article. Additionally, the article relies heavily on a single source, with 4 of the 6 citations being from the same book, and it's likely that the sources used in the article repeat the aforementioned error.

Zenphia1 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Computing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The deletion rationale in the nomination sounds like OR — saying that the definition in the article is incorrect and so the article ought to be junked. But if the sources define the concept that way, that's the way it's defined, regardless of whether it's right or wrong for a particular application. And the question of what is "typical for human use" is beside the point if, as appears to be the case, the concept originated in electronic computers, where the leading digit has to be stored even if it is 0. That said, the term radix economy may itself be a mild case of OR. The book from 1950 uses phrases like "The economy to be gained by choice of radix", but not radix economy specifically (AFAICT). The sources that come up in Google Scholar are more recent than the creation of this article; they seem to start around 2012, when the article had been around for six years already and looked like this. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep WP:SK3, invalid nomination. The nomination statement makes no effort to address the notability of the topic. Nothing in our article is incorrect; as the article itself says, it is "one of various proposals that have been made to quantify the relative costs of using different radices". The nomination appears to amount to the nominator preferring a different formula. That different formula should go on a different article (and it does, Entropy (information theory)). The preference for which formula to use is irrelevant to whether any particular formula is notable. This one is, with in-depth sourcing in the American Scientist article (which by the way includes some justification for why this formula might be a good choice in some circumstances). The ternary tree source is not so much about this specific formula but also provides a valid justification for this formula (via the fact that for certain tree operations, multiplication by the base and not its logarithm is the correct complexity analysis). More in-depth sourcing (enough to pass GNG together with the American Scientist source) can be found e.g. at Kak, Subhash C. (2021), "The base-e representation of numbers and the power law", Circuits Syst. Signal Process., 40 (1): 490–500, doi:10.1007/S00034-020-01480-0. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep No valid reason to delete, nomination is almost entirely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep No valid deletion rationale has been advanced, so WP:SK3 applies. The article might have to be renamed and cleaned up if the specific term isn't attested prior to the article creation, but that's a different discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this and the other lists below do not meet WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 2 of 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 3 of 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 4 of 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and China. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons why the article is put on the wiki main space include:

1. Lists are a kind of wiki articles in Wikipedia;

2. Similar articles such as List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 have been on the main space for ages.

3. Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 etc. are sorted in YES order for easy lookup and include stroke orders information.

By the way, the article has been reviewed twice since its publication last month and has been rated List-class by the first reviewer. Ctxz2323 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ther are 4 relevant sources in the brief introduction in front of the list. And more are available in the parent article, as mentioned there. Thanks for your attention.

Welcome to add more sources to make the article more notable. Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I have no strong opinion on whether this stroke-order information should be on Wiktionary articles like wikt:锗; but it should not be an encyclopedia article. Per nom, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  More information for reference: All the 4 articles have just been reviewed on June 15, 2024, by Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs). (Thanks, Vanderwaalforces) Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The review was to take the article off the NPP queue and not to give it an outright approval. This discussion will determine if they’ll stay or be deleted. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like a great and useful work but in violation of WP:NOTDICT. The Appendix of Wiktionary looks like a potential place for this; I would suggest to transwiki there. (Any Wiktionarians around?) —Kusma (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It sounds like a good suggestion. Thanks!

  I will try it. New to Appendix of Wiktionary, it may take time. Ctxz2323 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thue (programming language)

Thue (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, non-notable, one of hundreds if not thousands of esolangs. wound theology◈ 07:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  08:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Insufficient coverage online/in books to justify inclusion per WP:GNG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Aesthetically, the language is simple. Theoretically, the language is founded in semi-Thue grammar, so it has a basis. Practically, it is a simple example of a rewriting system, like hello world, so it can be fed into a process. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  None of these are good reasons to keep the page. There's no sources and it isn't notable. wound theology◈ 19:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most of the content of the article appears to be from the esolang wiki article, and that's the only non-primary mention of it I could find online (And even then, only through the external links section, a quick internet search returned no english-language results). Fails WP:GNG for me. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong)

Huawei Mate 8

Huawei Mate 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, but doesn't appear to be notable enough for a standalone article. A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Huawei Mate series but I was unsure about that, especially as this is wholly unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental Result

Supplemental Result (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination as the post-WP:BLAR redirect was rejected at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result. One suggestion was to add content about the subject at the Google (I assume Google Search) article. Jay 💬 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, Internet, Software, and Websites. Jay 💬 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure but page looks to me to've been AI-written. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt. The article was created in 2007 and BLARd in 2017. Jay 💬 06:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah. Prob not then. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptovirology

Cryptovirology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be something coined by A. Young, and was not adopted in the wider world. Other sources such as Scientific American and the NIST do not mention the word. Also, COI editing is involved here: Special:Contributions/Adamlucasyoung. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : I don't see use of the term in any RS, other than here [2] and I'm not sure if that is even a valid source. Appears to be a new word that never caught on. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I stand corrected, Gscholar has many papers using the term and it's been in use since the 1990's [3], [4] and [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] is a paper by the person who coined the term originally, and so is [4]. Leaves [3], which is not enough. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Oaktree b got one that passed the nominator's litmus test but there plenty are more. For example:

• Bhardwaj & Das, Chaos Control Dynamics of Cryptovirology in Blockchain, Chapter 7 of Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology Applications (Wiley 2020)
• Tivari et al, A Brief Survey of Crypto Virology and Worms (2018)

There are 684 855 hits on Google Scholar for this term, only a few of which are by Young. Yes, many are not RS but these would have been found on the most minimal WP:BEFORE search. If @PhotographyEdits still feels this term has not been "adopted in the wider world" then I think it would be incumbent on them to explain what efforts they made to exclude the possibility the google scholar results contain less than two reliable sources with significant coverage of the term. Oblivy (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of passing mentions does not mean it passes the WP:GNG.

Quite a lot of them are citogenesis, because the cryptovirology word has been included for a long time in the first sentence of the ransomware article. A whole lot are just returning a hit because they cite the original paper by A. Young but do not add anything about the term. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consider the Bhardwaj & Das book chapter? It is literally about cryptivirology ("the study in this chapter deals with the dynamics of worm propagation in cryptovirol-
ogy"). Is that a passing mention?

I don't understand this: Quite a lot of them are citogenesis, because the cryptovirology word has been included for a long time in the first sentence of the ransomware article. Can you explain? Note that when "a whole lot" of papers cite a paper about a concept that can be evidence of notability.

Can you confirm you did a WP:BEFORE search that included Google Scholar? Your nomination statement only talked about existing sources and I think disregarding hundreds of hits would generate some explanation. Oblivy (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>Can you confirm you did a WP:BEFORE search that included Google Scholar?

Yes, I did.

Please also see my comment below.

The ransomware article weirdly states it is part of a larger field called cryptovirology, while this does not seem to be the case. PhotographyEdits (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, not a standard terminology, looks like a promo for its author. Artem.G (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • still sounds strange to me, but google scholar shows 855 results. Artem.G (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The first paper in the results cites Wikipedia itself. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Two books here [6] and [7]. The term is also used in French [8] and here [9]. The term might not be that well-known, but it's used enough to at least show basic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    and here [10] from 2008. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Something I did not mentioned but I should make clear: the article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As the originator of the terms says in the following article: https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/cryptovirology/

"Years later, the media relabeled the cryptoviral extortion attack as ransomware."

Therefore, this article should be a redirect to ransomware article. The term should only be mentioned in the early history of ransomware. Also, meeting WP:GNG does not mean the subject is required to have an article. We can merge an outdated term into the article with the common name.

PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems we are heading toward a consensus to keep the article, but could we evaluate the nominators thought that this should be merged with ransomware? It's not clear whether this is quite right as Cryptovirology looks like the study of ransomware and similar methods. Pinging @Oaktree b: @Artem.G: @Oblivy: any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like cryptovirology is essentially "the use of cryptography in viruses." It looks like it's mostly ransomeware encrypting data, but according to the article it's also about things like publishing user data in encrypted form to be found by virus makers, and also asymmetric backdoors. So if the article was to be merged it would have to be merged into multiple articles.

• Ransomware seems to have pretty good coverage of encryption usage
• Backdoor (computing) has a section on asymmetric backdoors that references essentially the same things as the cryptovirology article
• Private information retrieval is something the article claims is a theoretical use of cryptography in viruses
• The rest (the article mentions viruses communicating with cryptography, and "cryptographic counters") would have to go into Computer virus

So the real question is probably whether the use of cryptography in viruses is well-covered enough that it needs its own article. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Kleptography, which may get its own AFD if this one succeeds but could be a merge target. One of the books mentioned above distinguishes cryptovirology into "active" and "passive", where active is essentially ransomware and passive is essentially the kleptography article, so by that definition we would have it covered. The one thing missing is cryptographical virus communication, but that's not discussed in the article other than a trivial mention, so there would be nothing to merge. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> So the real question is probably whether the use of cryptography in viruses is well-covered enough that it needs its own article.

My answer to this is a pretty clear 'no'. Also, all the articles you linked is pretty much industry standard terminlogy, while this really is not. My vote is either 'delete' or 'merge and redirect'. Ransomware seems like the best merge target. I might open an AfD to Kleptography as well soon. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]