Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CryptoHeaven

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. Wizardman 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CryptoHeaven[edit]

Not verifiable: the only third-party reference is a promotion piece from a TV show. The article is written like an advert and has not improved at all since November 2007. -- intgr [talk] 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertisement. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be notable based on the results at g-scholar and g-books. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 15 results in G-scholar and Gbooks is not significant, and look at the results they all are just references to a commercial website http://www.cryptoheaven.com which is what the article is about. The company itself is insignificant however they may use significant encryption techniques in which case an article on that would be notable wherein they might be mentioned. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; they are references to the subject of the article, hence the reason I looked them up. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to meet WP:CORP. Deli nk (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make a mention of this company on some article like Cryptography --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This company is not doing anything new so it's hardly relevant to the general picture of cryptography. -- intgr [talk] 04:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So that's where Superboy's pet dog went!!! Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as just an ad, not notable--Doug Weller (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although company does not seem to be large, the technology is significant. It is noted in books, university publications, and articles like 'CRS Report for Congress' g-scholar. Wording of the article could be edited to better suite encyclopedic entry. -- Holkoagnes (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.