Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equato 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   speedily deleted per G7 criteria, as the author requested deletion (and also blanked the article) and nobody else has provided substantial content. --  At am a  頭 18:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Equato Encryption

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article describes a concept created by a pair of college freshmen within the past week or so. The article was written by one of those students, violating WP:NFT completely. Of course, nothing in this article is verifiable. The list of references at the end have little or nothing to do with the article's text.  At am a  頭 16:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. For reasons stated exactly by nominator. Nageh (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  --  At am a  頭  16:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Snow delete. This is the sort of thing that sometimes makes me wish WP:NFT were a speedy deletion criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply - I agree, in fact I suggested to Nageh that it might be a good proposal for WT:CSD. I wish I could have deleted it under that criteria or any other and saved the trouble to bring it here. --  At am a  頭 18:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is a submitted research paper at NSS 2011, an international conference on network and system security. Link to a copy of the paper =. There are nothing verifiable on this article yet and can be deleted in that terms. And how does being a college freshmen matter? Wikipedia asks one to be tolerant to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.102.18 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You may delete the article immediately as it is unable to provide anything verifiable yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayan092 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh, your paper is just as vague as the Wikipedia article. Concerning your freshmenship, this has nothing to do with the discussion indeed. In fact, I expressed appreciation for your efforts into research, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. Concerning immediate deletion, as you contested the earlier deletion proposal this has to go through a discussion phase now before being deleted. Oh well, it's deleted. All the best, Nageh (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.