- 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- SQRL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Likely does not currently meet WP:GNG. Could not find any mainstream sources on this. All sources referring to this not from the author seem to be blogs or online discussion fora, and all of those are from immediately after the initial announcement. There are some people working on client implementations, but no secondary sources indicating that any major sites even have plans to adopt it. Per WP:GNG and WP:CBALL, I propose that the article be deleted with no prejudice against re-creation if it becomes widely adopted or picks up any mainstream coverage in the future. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete as nominator. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)- Struck out as you can't vote Delete twice .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - There are several reliable sources on SQRL to meet notability and merit an article. It's getting sufficient page views and is not an orphan. Morphh (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what the "several reliable sources" are that you're referring to? Beyond the primary sources (which don't establish notability), the closest thing to a reliable source is the TechRepublic blog post, which has other problems with it (as discussed in my other reply below). As for your other points, we don't delete articles because they are orphaned or because they aren't getting enough pageviews. Those are not valid criteria for judging whether or not something gets its own article. If it's a common search term but the concept isn't notable, we can redirect the article to another article with relevant information (e.g. we can add some mention of SQRL to the relevant section of the QR codes page), but that should have no bearing on the deletion discussion. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- ghacks I thought was fine. I was also considering TWIT as well, though that might be considered primary due to the show's relationship with Gibson. I think it has been mentioned on other TWIT shows. It's also referenced by the client implementations taking place across various platforms and languages. Morphh (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what the "several reliable sources" are that you're referring to? Beyond the primary sources (which don't establish notability), the closest thing to a reliable source is the TechRepublic blog post, which has other problems with it (as discussed in my other reply below). As for your other points, we don't delete articles because they are orphaned or because they aren't getting enough pageviews. Those are not valid criteria for judging whether or not something gets its own article. If it's a common search term but the concept isn't notable, we can redirect the article to another article with relevant information (e.g. we can add some mention of SQRL to the relevant section of the QR codes page), but that should have no bearing on the deletion discussion. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete: None of the provided references qualify as independent reliable sources. Except maybe the Techrepublic one, but it says it's a "blog" too. Note also that the "Security Now!" podcast is closely related to Steve Gibson.-- intgr [talk] 15:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)- Techrepublic would probably fall under WP:NEWSBLOG. Morphh (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think the reliability of the TechRepublic blog is less important than the fact that the article itself doesn't really establish notability. It's essentially just a writeup of what I assume was a press release that accompanied the release of SQRL. Even if one source on a tech newsblog were sufficiently reliable, it's not clear that this doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS (since there hasn't really been any coverage of this since the initial announcement). 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Article is not required to establish notability to survive AfD. We're primarily evaluating the subject, not the articles here. ~KvnG 15:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think the reliability of the TechRepublic blog is less important than the fact that the article itself doesn't really establish notability. It's essentially just a writeup of what I assume was a press release that accompanied the release of SQRL. Even if one source on a tech newsblog were sufficiently reliable, it's not clear that this doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS (since there hasn't really been any coverage of this since the initial announcement). 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. While it has Techrepublic source, it doesn't really talk much about it, the rest are primary sources. Also, this idea seems to copy eKaay, so there may be some prior art issues. Frmorrison (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I followed this when Steve Gibson first launched it. Although initially there seemed to be much support it has not developed outside a small dedicated group. If in the future it does become established and widely used we should have an article, at the moment a mention on his own article page will suffice. Dsergeant (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep: Two sources, Ghacks and Techrepublic seem to qualify as significant coverage and independent sources. There's also a dissertation, though not published in a scientific journal. -- intgr [talk] 14:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- I looked around some more and found what might be more reliable sources indicating notability. Here is a talk at a developer conference about the implementation of SQRL by someone I assume is not associated with Gibson. Here is a bachelor's thesis on the topic of implementing SQRL (again, not published in a peer-reviewed journal). Here is something which looks to be an analysis of various visual identification schemes, including SQRL. Again, this doesn't seem to be something published in a peer-reviwed journal. Overall, I'm not totally convinced here - you can't cobble together notability out of a bunch of half-reliable sources, but I thought it would be irresponsible not to mention what I've found. It may well be that, in a vacuum, I would believe that this is notable, but the grandiose, unsubstantiated claims about being "in talks with the W3C" (plus if you'll notice the HTML5 developer's conference abstract says that SQRL "set the internet on fire", which doesn't seem super accurate given how hard it's been to find any discussion of this more than a month or two out from the first announcement) and such have set my expectations too high, and biased me against a neutral assessment of the notability of this topic. I'd say that I'm changing my vote (presumptively "Delete" because I'm the nominator) to Weak delete in light of this new evidence. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, in my view the sources provided by user:intgr are sufficient to squeak this past the general notability guideline, if only just. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC).
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep While it may some time before the specification finds its way into international standards bodies publications, it is such a self-evident technology to those in the know, that at that time it will be uncontestably notable and if it's deleted now, it will have to be re-created. Wasted effort. 41.150.91.227 (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability established by TechRepublic and gHacks. ~KvnG 15:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Regardless of some who wish SQRL to be legitimized by a popularity contest it is something to be informed about publicly for the sake of telecommunication security. The fact that it is an idea of function as advertised and that it is being donated free of charge with open code is enough to qualify it as legitimately relevant to security. Wikipedia is after all all about providing information based on facts freely donated by the public for the public for a common cause. To be informed about something of interest whether or not something becomes something more or less in the future shouldn't keep us from adding SQRL to the Wiki knowledge base as existing as long as it is as claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.196.184 (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The question here is about WP:GNG and whether SQRL currently meets notability guidelines. It could be a proprietary machine that indiscriminately kills orphans and the analysis would be the same, so it doesn't really matter about the intentions of the creator. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 12:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: This product may change the world (e.g. Darpa wants to eliminate passwords) or sink without trace. But IMO TODAY it's vaporware and TODAY it has 'promise'. Is promise notable? Twang (talk) 01:59, 12 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.
- Keep This is exactly the sort of article that should be preserved on Wikipedia precisely because it is obscure and has only a few refs. I am increasingly concerned and annoyed at attempts to remove valuable knowledge on grounds that it's seen as somehow trivial. Where else would I find a balanced assessment of this information? How else would I discover it? What possible disadvantage is there on it remaining? Those who oppose its inclusion oppose the very nature of Wikipedia and it really does make me quite angry sometimes. My apologies for the strong words. --gilgongo (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)