Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown fox code
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Sandstein 06:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brown fox code[edit]
- Brown fox code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is kinda neat, but it is really just an example for a substitution cipher. There is also no indication that this example would be particularly noteworthy (e.g., a common textbook example). Nageh (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Code is mentioned in this abstract from ACM[1] but I don't have full text access. Also covered in Boys' Life Jan 1994 on Google Books.[2] Close to notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, that ACM book also includes the notable User talk:Ciphergoth/One-time pad code, and actually each and every cipher from the English Wikipedia. Absolutely notable! It is covered in one comics magazine for boys, and in one schools book by Miller, which given as a "reliable" source in the article. And note that two or three sources are not significant coverage in reliable sources as required by our notability guideline! Think a bit next time before you are commenting!</rant> Nageh (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why so angry? I suggested sources that might establish notability but that I wasn't able to read, and I didn't vote one way or another, but if it is content copied from WP then obviously that's not independent. If you want to post idiotic abusive comments on other people's work why don't you fuck off to the YouTube comments section? And read some Wikipedia policy documents on the way: 2 or 3 reliable sources are "multiple sources", which is all the WP:N says - show me where it specifies a number. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Go fuck around somewhere else. Maybe on the Youtube comments section. There it might not be necessary to read the links you provide. And maybe you don't even have to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Good luck! Nageh (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And just an excerpt from the link you didn't even bother reading: "all there is to know about Encryption right away, covering: [...] User talk:Ciphergoth/One-time pad [...]" All that was needed was that you'd read your own links. No full text access needed. Nageh (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth pointing out that this is given as something that the paper covers, rather than as a direct reference. Certainly a careless thing to do, but not necessarily an indication that the paper is reliant on Wikipedia somehow. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "not necessarily an indication that the paper is reliant on Wikipedia somehow". What??? Yeah, sure. Nageh (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Without contesting anything you said, could you please be WP:CIVIL. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If, like me, you've yet to gain full access to the paper, then your divining its contents from a snippet of the abstratc is roughly as productive as your attitude on this AfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In contrast to you, Chris, I am spending countless hours on improving articles in the area of cryptography and within the WikiProject Cryptography. In contrast to you, Chris, I am spending considerable time and research on determining whether articles are indeed of questionable notability before putting them up for AfD. In contrast to you, Chris, I am checking deeply for sources before putting a specific article up for AfD. In contrast to you, Chris, I am investigating whether an abstract of a book is just coincidence (how can it even? you explain!), or whether customers of books by this author complain all over the web that his books are just mere collections of Wikipedia articles. In contrast to you, Chris, I am trying to come up with substantial criticism. Thank you for your productiveness, Chris! Nageh (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to have mistaken me for some other editor who exhibits various traits you dislike. Much like the advice to leave the snark and flaming out at home, you might be best leaving off that as well. Anyway, yes, if there is significant rather than circumstantial evidence that the source in question simply copies out own content then it's obviously invalid. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In contrast to you, Chris, I am spending countless hours on improving articles in the area of cryptography and within the WikiProject Cryptography. In contrast to you, Chris, I am spending considerable time and research on determining whether articles are indeed of questionable notability before putting them up for AfD. In contrast to you, Chris, I am checking deeply for sources before putting a specific article up for AfD. In contrast to you, Chris, I am investigating whether an abstract of a book is just coincidence (how can it even? you explain!), or whether customers of books by this author complain all over the web that his books are just mere collections of Wikipedia articles. In contrast to you, Chris, I am trying to come up with substantial criticism. Thank you for your productiveness, Chris! Nageh (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "not necessarily an indication that the paper is reliant on Wikipedia somehow". What??? Yeah, sure. Nageh (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth pointing out that this is given as something that the paper covers, rather than as a direct reference. Certainly a careless thing to do, but not necessarily an indication that the paper is reliant on Wikipedia somehow. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why so angry? I suggested sources that might establish notability but that I wasn't able to read, and I didn't vote one way or another, but if it is content copied from WP then obviously that's not independent. If you want to post idiotic abusive comments on other people's work why don't you fuck off to the YouTube comments section? And read some Wikipedia policy documents on the way: 2 or 3 reliable sources are "multiple sources", which is all the WP:N says - show me where it specifies a number. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also, agree with nom that it is kind of neat. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete insufficient notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Yes, it is kind of neat. Not particularly notable.Marikafragen (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2012 (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.