Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIME ENCRYPTION

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 commonsense snow delete‎. Lourdes 05:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]
Creator comment – 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]
Creator comment – 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]
Creator comment – Its a discussion page. Discussing is not BLUDGEONING. Please stop being toxic. Delete the article if you have to. But stop this. Sequel5 (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tirelessly replying to every single comment in order to hammer your viewpoint is the definition of BLUDGEONING TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator comment – Great teamwork. All the best. Wont waste more time Sequel5 (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to show that it has "US National Security classification" just that the BIS said it was not export restricted KylieTastic (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator comment – @KylieTastic: BIS is the parent body of National Security Agency. All encryption licenses have to be reviewed by NSA as a law. Please consider researching. Sequel5 (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The parent of the National Security Agency is the Department of Defense "NSA is part of the U.S. Department of Defense" KylieTastic (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator comment – @KylieTastic: Please check this link : BIS Jurisdiction Sequel5 (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sequel5, it does not mention the NSA and that still does not change the fact that your source just states that something had a classification. It does not say what it was, or what it was classified as. Not that a LinkedIn post is a trusted source but this also just says they granted an encryption item is authorised for export, which could mean it was as simple as a Caesar cipher. The honest thing would be to say the Bureau of Industry and Security has said that it can be exported under 740.17(b)(3) which would actually indicate that they do not consider it to be "the most secure and powerful encryption service in the world". KylieTastic (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Classification by Bureau of Industry and Security. Sequel5 (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nothing to show this any anything but pure fiction and a hoax - as it relates to security this should be removed as soon as possible. The "Smatter eagle" 3.0 https://smatter.co.uk app was also still 3.0 over a year ago without magic encryption. This just looks like pure meaningless marketing: "Time Encrypted - Every Millisecond has to be reverse engineered" is meaningless word salad. The claim claim "Messages secured by US National Security Agency Classified Time Encryption" is also misleading making it sound secure when the response from the Bureau of Industry and Security (not the N.S.A) said it's fine to export, not classified. This has clearly been created to promote and give validity to the claims see this. KylieTastic (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I too was asked for help by Sequel5 by email. KylieTastic (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creator comment – Hello @KylieTastic:, thank you for your time. We wanted neutral participation in the discussion. We have invited administrators to oversee the discussions. Sorry if we were in violation of conduct. Sequel5 (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sequel5: Stop trying to WP:CANVASS me through my email. Noah^Talk 10:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator comment – Hello @Hurricane Noah:, thank you for your time. We wanted neutral participation in the discussion. We have invited administrators to oversee the discussions. Sorry if we were in violation of conduct. Sequel5 (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sequel5, who is "we"? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sequel5 has removed several of their earlier comments in response to other editors !votes. I note this in particular because this may remove some of the context from the above discussion. [1] —siro χ o 05:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatantly not notable; previous versions likely met G11 and I suspect this is some sort of scam so G3 may also apply. The only "sources" I was able to find were the company's website, which as KylieTastic noted looks like a scam (they have an app they're charging $350 for, totally normal stuff), and a LinkedIn post by the CEO "announcing" it, which links a source...this Wikipedia article. Not linking that (beans) but if you Google the company name and the article name together, you'll find the same stuff. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:38, 14 August 2023 (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.