Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIME ENCRYPTION: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:33, 13 August 2023

TIME ENCRYPTION

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Patently non-notable algorithm; it can't pass WP:GNG and has no other notable qualities that would pass another guideline. The article is also completely riddled with WP:OR. I also have reason to suspect Mark Haine (who commented extensively on the talk page in support of this article) is a sockpuppet of or closely related to this article's creator Sequel5, as they have similar writing styles and extremely similar points, and MH has literally no edits unrelated to this single article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails to pass WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creator comment – Hello Conyo14, Thank you for sharing your perspective on the "TIME ENCRYPTION" article. I appreciate your input and the consideration you've given to its notability. I've taken note of your concerns and the discussion points you've raised. As we continue to discuss the fate of the article, I'm here to provide additional information, address any questions, and work towards finding a consensus that benefits the Wikipedia community. Your input is valuable, and I'm eager to engage constructively in the ongoing discussion. Sequel5 (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a very interesting subject but lacks supporting references. Article history might be COI as well. Maybe send back to draft for the author to continue working on... - Indefensible (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creator comment – Hello Indefensible, Thank you for your thoughtful comment on the "TIME ENCRYPTION" article. I'm glad to hear that you find the subject interesting. I fully understand your concern about the lack of supporting references and the potential for conflicts of interest in the article's history. I agree that sending the article back to draft status could provide myself, an opportunity to continue working on it and addressing the issues raised. This would allow me to further research and gather relevant, verifiable sources to support the content and improve the overall quality of the article. Your suggestion aligns with the goal of ensuring that Wikipedia maintains its high standards of accuracy and reliability. I'm committed to collaborating and making the necessary revisions to enhance the article's content. Thank you for your input, and I'm looking forward to contributing constructively to the ongoing improvement of the "TIME ENCRYPTION" article. Sequel5 (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace, if this ever becomes notable, it can be added back to mainspace. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – "If this ever becomes notable" is, in my opinion, an extremely poor reason to suggest WP:DRAFTIFYing. Draftifying is for improving an article whose subject is presumed notable, not for leaving indefinitely, praying that it becomes notable. Additionally, the article in its present state is essentially entirely WP:OR; there's almost nothing worth salvaging as far as Wikipedia's guidelines and policies are concerned. Additionally, this sort of thinking presumes that articles can't be recreated after an AfD, which simply isn't true. As long as a subject can be shown to be notable after a deletion at AfD, it can still be recreated. It's more of an uphill battle, but it absolutely doesn't preclude "if this ever becomes notable". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creator comment – Hello TheTechnician27, Thank you for your thoughtful input regarding the "TIME ENCRYPTION" article. I understand your concerns about notability and potential issues with original research. I'd like to address those points and discuss how the article can still provide value to Wikipedia:

1. **Notability**: While I acknowledge that "TIME ENCRYPTION" might not be widely known outside of certain circles, its classification by the US National Security Agency itself highlights its significance in the realm of cryptography and national security. This unique aspect sets it apart from many other encryption methods, and this distinctive characteristic aligns with Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

2. **Original Research**: I'm fully committed to addressing any instances of original research within the article. I'll make sure to thoroughly review the content and ensure that all claims are properly supported by reliable and verifiable sources.

3. **Concerns about User Accounts**: I assure you that I am not associated with any sockpuppetry or related actions. I value the integrity of Wikipedia and its community, and my intent is solely to contribute accurate and well-sourced information.

4. **Contributions Beyond the Article**: I also appreciate your feedback on the talk page and understand that diversifying contributions is important. While my current focus has been on "TIME ENCRYPTION," I'm open to expanding my contributions to other relevant areas on Wikipedia.

I believe that with collaborative efforts, we can address the concerns you've raised and turn the "TIME ENCRYPTION" article into a valuable resource. I'm here to engage constructively and work towards enhancing the quality of the article while respecting Wikipedia's guidelines. Your continued feedback is welcomed, and I'm looking forward to the opportunity to improve this important topic together. Sequel5 (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creator comment – Hello DarmaniLink, Thank you for your suggestion to move the "TIME ENCRYPTION" article to draftspace. I appreciate your consideration of the article's potential notability in the future. Moving it to draftspace allows for continued development and refinement, with the possibility of reintroducing it to mainspace once it meets the necessary criteria for notability and reliable sourcing. Your perspective aligns with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, where articles can evolve and improve over time. I'm committed to working on the article and addressing the concerns that have been raised. Your feedback is valuable, and I'm looking forward to contributing constructively to the ongoing enhancement of the article in draftspace. Sequel5 (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not meet WP:N or WP:V. I can't find any mentions. The one link in article makes no mention of the subject. Even this article states Little is known publicly. I'm hesitant to draftify something with literally zero verifiability. —siro χ o 05:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a risk this is a scam. This article may be a backdoor ad for a very expensive encryption app released by the company mentioned in the article. I found one reference with a lowercase version of the name that seems to potentially be referring to the same thing, on an app entry in an app store that allows for self-publishing of descriptions. A similarly named without the reference to the lowercase version of the name app has been removed from a different high-profile app store. —siro χ o 05:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the risk of a scam, I've removed the bulk of the information from the article per WP:PROVEIT. —siro χ o 05:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely this is some sort of off colour joke? The only "content" of the article being that it was created in 2023, and "little is known about the algorithm itself". --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @TheInsatiableOne:, @Siroxo: is trying very hard to get the article deleted by removing certain parts of the article. He might have an ulterior motive. Please recheck again.

Sequel5 (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His "ulterior motive" was removing unverified and uncited content. See his link to PROVEIT. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly fails WP:GNG. I would not recommend draftification unless sources can be found; there's no point draftifying if the subject is not notable. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Schminnte: If you are of the opinion that US National Security classification is not notable, let us all be prepared to remove all classified content from wikipedia with minimal secondary sources.

Sequel5 (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already spoken to you on your talk page: these comments add nothing to the discussion and are approaching WP:BLUDGEONING. Please stop. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 08:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 *:Hello {{re|TheInsatiableOne}}, {{re|Siroxo}} is trying very hard to get the article deleted by removing certain parts of the article. He might have an ulterior motive. Please recheck again.
 *:[[User:Sequel5|Sequel5]] ([[User talk:Sequel5|talk]]) 08:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
+*::His "ulterior motive" was removing unverified and uncited content. See his link to PROVEIT. [[User:TheInsatiableOne|TheInsatiableOne]] ([[User talk:TheInsatiableOne|talk]]) 08:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''': clearly fails [[WP:GNG]]. I would not recommend draftification unless sources can be found; there's no point draftifying if the subject is not notable. <span style="font-family: Opensans, sans-serif;">[[User:Schminnte|Schminnte]] ([[User talk:Schminnte|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Schminnte|contribs]])</span> 18:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 *:Hello {{re|Schminnte}} If you are of the opinion that US National Security classification is not notable, let us all be prepared to remove all classified content from wikipedia with minimal secondary sources.