Talk:Cryptol

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 January 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cryptography: Computer science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance). Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This went through deletion review. Conclusion:

I've since commented out categories, etc. I would attempt to source this if I could, but it's far outside my areas of competence, let alone expertise. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are now five reliable sources in the article so I have restored it to mainspace. SilkTork *^YES! 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the DRV, I don't have a problem with the article per se but I'd like a consensus review of it and the sourcing. It still looks too light, and I'd rather save the fuss of another AFD when a simple up and down DRV can hash it out. rootology (C)(T) 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your action was too strong and too quick. The concern was regarding sources, and you have clearly not had time to check out the sources. SilkTork *^YES! 19:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, before I did the move back, I had plenty of time to review the three very, very short sources. There wasn't a whole lot to them. :( rootology (C)(T) 20:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is looking for them, Google Scholar has some more references that could be researched. —Noah 18:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a private language. You pay to learn it and use it? 197.185.100.10 (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]