Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Envaulting

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Envaulting

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

This article appears to be a solution advertisement instead of a balanced article. Asdf2010 (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is coatrack spam: Envaulting was developed in cooperation by Envault Corporation .... Envault Corporation has filed international patent applications protecting the envaulting method and several implementation level solutions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. This process has not yet been the subject of coverage in multiple, reliable sources. — Satori Son 16:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has 3 references. Sure, the are offline, but there is no policy barring offline sources from establishing notability, even if they comprise 100% of the sources. Dew Kane (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to double-check those references for coverage of this specific subject. — Satori Son 17:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable sources covering this encryption method. The sources in the article are rather vague, as they provide no page numbers nor do they identify exactly what in the article the references are supposed to verify. It's interesting that this press release from 2008 calls it a new crypto concept but the Scheier reference is to the 1996 edition of his book, and the second reference is to something published in 2002. The third reference, I suspect makes no mention of envaulting as it is a paper about a specific type of attack that envaulting is supposed to solve. However, most telling is that despite there being a very active cryto research community, Google Scholar searching turns up only three results with the first two appearing to be the same paper, and the the third not even being about crypto. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. I've removed the first two book references that clearly do not even mention the subject, much less cover it. — Satori Son 17:07, 31 March 2010 (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.