Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SharkSSL

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)

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)