Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SharkSSL

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 delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

SharkSSL

SharkSSL (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)

NN software that doesn't assert notability. I trimmed the press releases, negative comparative language ("unlike X"), and non-independent material out of the article, and I can't find a single documented instance of where it is used that isn't cited to the company or a press release. It's been around for a decade, and I just can't find anything independent on it. MSJapan (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

MSJapan, I think you are abusing your editing privileges and I'm not sure if it's a direct attack against me personally or this company Real Time Logic, but there seems to be a pattern. What seems extremely odd is that you first delete much of the content and related references that have nothing to do with press release or the company itself and then make an unfounded proposal for deletion. These were the first articles that I tried on Wikipedia and sure I made mistakes, but there appears to be an obvious pattern of attack here.

MSJapan, I clicked on the 'news' link that you inserted above and found another article that I missed. "It's been around for a decade, and I just can't find anything independent on it.", I guess you didn't even bother to look at your own recommendation for where information could be found as this comes up as the last News search recommendation: http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Federleichte-Diener-1134638.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorisen (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would you delete half the article along with the references and then state there are no references?:

COSIC Cryptography Researchers acknowledge SharkSSL for delivering the fastest, and smallest known implementation for Cortex-M processors.

The SharkSSL concept is focused on code readability, documentation, and a loosely coupled design to maintain portability. It is designed with hardware crypto engines in mind, using ANSI C and Assembly-optimized big-integer libraries to allow use in embedded devices associated with the Internet of Things (IoT).

• Secure SMQ C Client for publish–subscribe IoT Communications

The subject matter is about "embedded software", which if you understand the topic does not take mainstream visibility given it is embedded into a product or device. None of us know what software is used in connected devices that surround us everyday and I found it extremely hard to dig up the materials that I did site in this article. Given the endorsement of COSIC (above) I think we can safely assume that the technology has reached notability. I would appreciate if you would restore the article as I had it and then post it for deletion review rather than the hacked condition it is currently in. Sorisen (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Because, of those sources you've provided, the tech paper is about the Chaskey algorithm, and has no particular reference to SharkSSL except for one mention on page 6 as an opinion, in an experimental context as to how they benchmarked.

Direct Quote: "We compare the results for our Chaskey implementation with what is, to the best of our knowledge, the fastest available AES implementation for the ARM Cortex-M series: SharkSSL [60, 61]."

Given that in this group are the originating authors of the AES standard I would say that's the highest (expert)'opinion' possible. It was also necessary for them to disclose this as part of an educational purpose. So what you are ::really saying here is that you hold more knowledge about technical relevance than the COSIC researchers given that they used this reference in their foundation of research argumentation?

You have presented it in the article as actual fact true in all cases. So you have misused the source. You also seem to have a hard time differentiating the product from the company. The Connected World material you cite is the entire extent of the material on SharkSSL in that article, and is again presented as "Realtime says..." - that is the opinion of the company presented as such, and is not fact independent of the company. It fails WP:RS.

The article is about "Balancing Device Security and Design Cost" and why would you propose that they honed in on something of non-relative importance such as your call out on SharkSSL as a technology? The entirety of that article is ::not Realtime says..., but nice spin attack to eliminate any notable references that would independently single out this technology.

Shark SSL is not mentioned in either EE Journal article, because those articles talk about protocols in general. This is an article about the particular software, not the protocol underlying it, and you cannot inherit notability from articles which do not mention the specific product. MSJapan (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You deleted the entire feature section which calls out SMQ as a (feature) of SharkSSL. The SMQ PubSub C client SharkMQ is co-mingled code with SSL/TLS even though it wasn't cited in granularity in that particular article, but you ::would already know that if you bothered to read the manual and understand the technology.

The reference and entirety of how it was written sites the technology and has nothing to do with the company.

In summary I think it's clear that you are spending an absorbent amount of time to focus in either on my articles or attack anything that has to do with this company. I would again request that you restore the article to it's original condition and let other non-bias editors contribute their thoughts to the material without the targeted <snip> appearance it is currently in. I would recommend that others review the now deleted articles Barracuda Application Server and Barracuda Web Server that you promoted for speedy deletion, along with the attacking comments that you have given throughout against me (that were false) and even taunting messages to my own talk page. Wouldn't that seem like a fair gesture? Sorisen (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I'll point out here that you never responded to the discussion on WP:COIN [1] here in a satisfactory manner, and you have admitted to a relationship with the company, so you do indeed have a conflict of interest. You have not, however, made a case for why either the company or the product is notable. You have also never addressed how anything you have edited has ever met with policy. You have been told repeatedly that press releases are not reliable sources, and that that is not open to discussion. You have been told that trivial mentions of products are not significant coverage, and this is also not up for discussion. What you are doing is what most promotional editors do - take anything that has the company's name on it and call it a "source", without respect for the policies and procedures of the encyclopedia. You have only ever edited material relating to Real Time Logic and its products. Instead of asking me why I seem to have a focus on them, I think you need to disclose why you have a focus on them. MSJapan (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I responded to you on the pages you on the Barracuda Application Server/Barracuda Web Server pages that you had deleted and maybe I didn't add enough of the SAME answers in the COIN section, that you closed, so I cant edit - regardless. (Despite another editor suggesting more time.) I've been looking at WP:HA and other areas to get help, but I'm a novice and I have less that 6 months experience. Arguing with you is not enjoyable and pointless. It's sickening to see the time I spent just deleted and twisted with negativity and nothing positive whatsoever on how I could make anything better. Yes 'read the rules...' Any comment I make you twist (like reference Draft for Lua Server Pages, which is not yet completed and shows I was extending my writing in same relevant area with no product or COI pertaining to Realtime. Here you said it doesn't count because I didn't finish it and no edit in a couple months and I had them listed as a user of LSP technology. No I never admitted to a relationship. I asked for license permission to use images I found on google to adhere to the creative commons requirement. I asked them to read my article to insure technical accuracy and you turned it into "they wrote it together" and questioning my technical capacity for the subject matter. Sorisen (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: Well, here's an "unbiased" editor, such as Sorisen demands, and I find his arguments unpersuasive. He would be better served adding reliable sources conferring the significant coverage about the subject WP:GNG requires to the article, devoid of promotional/press release content explicitly debarred by the relevant guidelines, instead of mudslinging and ad hominem attacks, a standard tactic of editors lacking substantive arguments. (Honestly, does anyone glare at his terminal and think, "I have found a random editor, and despite knowing nothing about him and never having had dealings with him before, I somehow must hate him and wish him ill! Death to his articles!") I could find no such sources myself. Ravenswing 03:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

More sources that show independent coverage on SharkSSL:

http://www.edn.com/electronics-products/other/4376590/SharkSSL-secures-connected-LPC1000-based-devices Korean site: http://kr.aving.net/news/view.php?articleId=1216724 Sorisen (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Another press release, and a trade show report about Coressent, one of RTL's business partners? What is so difficult for you to understand about what a press release is? If the article starts with "Real Time Logic has released", isn't very long, and quotes prices, it's a press release, which means the company wrote it and sent it out. That is not an independent source. Anything relating to a business partner of the company is not independent of the company. Apparently the issue is that you do not seem to understand what "independent" means. Independent doesn't mean "it was published somewhere else besides the company's website." Independent means "the company had absolutely nothing to do with it." I really don't know how much clearer this can be stated. MSJapan (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: More Sources

Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS139133+27-Jun-2012+BW20120627

Google book search: https://www.google.com/search?q=SharkSSL+reuters&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=UVySV5rqBbHv8wfLqpCgDA&gws_rd=cr#tbm=bks&q=SharkSSL

SharkSSL on High beam: https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-325008927.html

German source: http://www.software4embedded.de/node/17020

French source: http://www.lembarque.com/real-time-logic-cherche-a-mieux-securiser-les-petits-equipements-m2m_000378 Sorisen (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

RTC Magazine Editor's Report Tom Williams 'M2M Meets Web Applications Spawning the Internet of Things' Aug 2013 Page 14: https://issuu.com/rtcgroup/docs/rtc1308/12 Sorisen (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

German source: Author Daniel Koch http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Federleichte-Diener-1134638.html Sorisen (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Linuxdevices: by Linuxdevices Staff - http://linuxdevices.linuxgizmos.com/remote-file-manager-showcases-embedded-linux-https-server/

Electronic Products: 'Library implements embedded crypto engine' Author Jim Harrison http://www.electronicproducts.com/Software/Development_Tools_and_Software/Library_implements_embedded_crypto_engine.aspx Sorisen (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Reuters is another press release. Ghits aren't sufficient, and there's only 2. HighBeam is the same press release as Reuters. The German source is a blog. The French source is the same Reuters press release in French. The last article not only includes an interview directly with a developer from the company, it has only passing mention. Linuxdevices is talking about BarracudaDrive, which uses SharkSSL. Electronic products is a press release. Coatracking stuff doesn't make it appropriate. I'm sorry if you're mad because you don't want to follow policies, but that's not my problem. Maybe when you get that job at RTL you're aiming for by being a nice guy for them for nothing, you'll go away. MSJapan (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

And just as a matter of full disclosure, the reason I am sounding relatively harsh is because this user has close enough ties to the company to ask them directly for vague licensing letters that he could get off the server but which were not available for public perusal, as evidenced in the COIN discussion, left a barnstar for another editor who was apparently pretty much associated with the company through his edits and actually hadn't edited in almost a year at the point where the barnstar was placed. So no, I don't see a need to treat this as a misunderstanding anymore. MSJapan (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

At the kind recommendation of the other editor I'm adding additional WP:RS to make it easy for everyone to see that the article meets WP:GNG. I think that the timeline and the numbers of global sources about the subject material help to provide the nobility of SharkSSL.

1. Reuters is a reliable source, that is independent of the subject, that publishes news on relevant topics. (It is based on press release), however still notable.
2. Not True: The Highbeam April 2013 reference is not the same is Reuters June 2012 reference, different content, different dates.
3. Not True: The France reference April 2013 reference is not the same as the Reuters June 2012 reference, different content, different dates.
4. The fact that the RTC Magazine editor interviewed Wilfred Neilson about the technology IMHO adds to the relevance and is not detracting. What's the difference if a music editor interviews a musician about a song. Does it make the song less relevant? SharkSSL is specifically called out and shown in the diagram for establishing secure M2M connections within embedded application I think it is reasonable to keep this article as showing relevance for the technology.
5. The Linuxdevices article dated 2005 which shows both in text and diagram use scenario and given it's an older article it shows duration over time for the technology in market acknowledgment via an independent source, to help for notability. (11 Years)
6. There are (3) books on the Ghit list not (2), so I listed them for you since you looked at them but didn't acknowledge that these are additional materials to provide notability for SharkSSL

• Selected Areas in Cryptography -- SAC 2014: 21st International Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada, August 14-15, 2014, Revised Selected Papers p 313 (SharkSSL is used as the best known existing performance reference for cryptographic research.)
• Information Security Applications: 14th International Workshop, WISA 2013, Jeju Island, Korea, August 19-21, 2013, Revised Selected Papers p19 (SharkSSL is used as the performance reference for cryptographic research.)
• Proceedings of the FISITA 2012 World Automotive Congress: Volume 6: Vehicle Electronics p. 690 (SharkSSL is recognized as an 'embedded' SSL/TLS implementation alternative to OpenSSL)

Note: Given your superior level of expertise I reviewed your pages to get good ideas on how I could improve my source material, but unfortunately found much of the same things that you argue against on this page so I'm literally confused at the hypocritical review of every single resource I site. In addition to the things that are not true...

Your page: Believer (Laura Dawn album)

http://www.allmusic.com/album/believer-mw0000591309

• Al Horowitz works for All Music the reviewer is the same company that sells the music.

MySpace.com - Laura Dawn - BROOKLYN, New York - www.myspace.com/laura_dawn

• The LauraDawn My Space is totally unbiased right? (Can't help to giggle here.)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GCkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=%22laura+dawn%22+believer&source=bl&ots=itw2_p67YP&sig=-kpx7i7CRH6Zm_NMVdTYZccLJdU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwCTgUahUKEwjisI7cgqTHAhWImBoKHeX2CVo#v=onepage&q=%22laura%20dawn%22%20believer&f=true

• Such a tiny mention of something that might be available on this entire page? Is that what you call Relevant and Notible?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2hEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=%22laura+dawn%22+believer&source=bl&ots=Ssvh5UDHfi&sig=sHHRoTRYkGs1RJ4PgBdz9j-9z8k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBjgeahUKEwjV1oTkgqTHAhVJ1BoKHcQrBF0#v=onepage&q=%22laura%20dawn%22%20believer&f=false

• Again tiny thing that doesn't even talk about the music just some random comment that the artist said - Notable?

Sorry but given your position and the harsh attack I think the above is reasonable for others to see that you are playing double standards here. Sorisen (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but a press release is a press release. I'm glad you brought up Wilfred Nilsen as the CEO, because it sure looks like the CEO of the company used his own name here and "reviewed" your article. How'd you manage to get access to a company CEO right out of the blue, with no connection to the company? I mean, if I called up his office, would I be able to get through to him just like you did? You're not being truthful in the slightest. MSJapan (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

More lies, keep them coming, it proves my point. I never brought up Wilfred Nilsen as the CEO and have no idea what you are talking about. Sorisen (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delete This is a very clear delete. When evaluating software, we tend to look for high quality WP:RS and over here, there are clearly few. All the supposed RS turn out to be press releases. I also look at popularity of software and it is very clear that this is far from popular. Popular softwares can be identified from wide coverage and numerous discussions online. Clearly there are few here. In addition, the massive COI and disruptive editing is troubling. Delete as fails GNG and also WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl1942, Sharkssl is an Embedded software TLS implementation. When looking at Comparison of TLS implementations, how are you able to determine any level of popularity? All Embedded Software is 'embedded' in a device the public has no working knowledge about where or what kinds of products it's used in unless this information is disclosed by the manufacturer, which by default in this discussion is named as an unreliable source though all communications to the news and the editorial community. The independent acknowledgement by COSIC in the research documentation I posted above is extremely relevant. Smallest is one of the most important criteria to micro controller systems that lack of memory resources in an embedded device. Why would you believe that the smallest and fastest implementation is not widely used by devices manufactures? The software by reference has an 11 year history and the information about it's relevance has been globally pronounced. This TLS implementation is also proprietary instead of open source, which I believe inherently adds to limited visibility. In my opinion eliminating it diminishes Wikipedia's expertise and reliable coverage regarding the the topic of TLS implementations. Sorisen (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please indent your comments.

1. Yes, I know exactly what it is. Please stop misleading others by your "independent acknowledgement" by COSIC. I'm not sure if you are familiar with computer science research, but a single line saying "fastest to the best of our efforts" in a single paper by certain researchers who are part of a single research group has absolutely no significance. Multiple research papers to demonstrate this is required.
2. You said Why would you believe that the smallest and fastest implementation is not widely used by devices manufactures? Because sometimes a free open source alternative is favoured over a proprietary one.
3. This TLS implementation is also proprietary instead of open source, which I believe inherently adds to limited visibility. Thank you. Wikipedia tends to follow the world. Since you have admitted that it has limited visibility in the real world, it should have limited visibility on Wikipedia as well. I am very clear about a delete now.

Just to clarify, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. If something is not widely used or widely covered in the world, we don't cover it either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

To clarify the quote: "We compare the results for our Chaskey implementation with what is, to the best of our knowledge, the fastest available AES implementation for the ARM Cortex-M series: SharkSSL [60, 61]." COSIC is not just any "computer science research", they created the AES world standard for encryption by which ALL TLS implementations must comply for support, thus elevating their position of authority on the subject matter. Sorisen (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

A research group is not considered an "authority" on a topic (however impeccable their contributions might be). I don't think you understand how the research world works. This is a single paper with a single line about the SharkSSL which is in turn not even the focus of the paper. I would have believed it if the paper had elaborated how they came to the conclusion and showed some evidence - but they haven't. Without evidence it is just a claim. They have not claimed that they have extensively compared it with other implementations. So I unfortunately, do not believe the claim. Btw, looking at the COIN thread, you clearly have a COI here and you are not declaring it. Please remember WP:NOTPROMO --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Going over Sorisen's sources, my take is the same as Lemongirl's. Beyond that, Sorisen would be well served -- that is, presuming he's neither being paid to fight his corner here no matter what, nor just hoping against hope that he can throw up anything, call it a "source" and hope we swallow it -- to read the relevant notability guidelines and get a better handle how things are done on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter, for example, whether a press release is delivered via tablet engraved by God: a press release cannot, explicitly, be used to support the notability of a subject. A Google search of book titles tells us nothing about the sources, their reliability or the degree to which the subject's mentioned: that can't be used to support the notability of a subject. A single paragraph of press release on a German blog site can't be used to support the notability of a subject, and it doesn't become less objectionable when it's on a French blog site instead. A name drop in an article about web servers sure as hell doesn't support the notability of a subject. And so on and so forth.

  At this point, I'm just not minded to do any more looking into the links Sorisen is serving up -- which so far seem to be based on the "Pick out the top few G-hits for "SharkSSL" and call those valid sources" principle -- and am pretty comfortable with assuming that any others he might proffer will just prove more smokescreens. If another editor wishes to try, that'd be another matter. Ravenswing 17:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Neither of the two remaining sources appropriately supported the claims they were tied to either, so both the claims and sources have been removed as unsubstantiated. The article, as it stands, is now entirely unsourced product puffery. MSJapan (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. press releases are press releases, no matter where published . The Reuters item is undoubtedly a press release, as shown by the attribution at the end, to the company. Not all press releases are so clearly marked, but Reuters usually does indicate at the bottom, as other reasonably reputable publications. I've learned to always look. Similar for the rest of the sourinb--the nom's analysis is correct as far as I can tell, tho the subject isn't my field. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as I've been examining this and everything is either simply not convincing or PR, none of which is keepable. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 3 August 2016 (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.