Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractal cryptography


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fractal cryptography
The only thing indicating this field even exists are the papers Ancona F, DeGloria A, Zunino R Distributed VLSI implementation of fractal cryptography Alta Frequenza, Nov-Dec 1996, vol.8, No.6, p.38-41, which as far as I can tell is about using Hilbert curves to alter the layout of VLSI cryptograhpic chips to prevent inspection, and which seems to be a science project. —Ruud 15:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. —Ruud 15:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Matt Crypto 15:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; unverifiable. The magazine "Alta Frequenza" appears extinct and I could not find any evidence it was peer-reviewed; the other Google hits seems unrelated. - Liberatore(T) 16:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - rubbish. &mdash; ciphergoth 16:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Liberatore. Such a waste to lose such a good description of recursion, though. :) --Mgreenbe 17:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the field of Fractal encryption on the other hand is rather an active one, without an article on Wikipedia - perhaps this stub was misnamed --DV8 2XL 02:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No it isn't - how did you get that impression? &mdash; ciphergoth 08:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fractal encryption or the misnamed part? I did a quick Google on the term 'Fractal encryption' and got a number of hits. --DV8 2XL 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look more closely - none of it is recent research published in peer reviewed cryptography journals or conferences. What you've found is that lots of people who don't know the field have had the same dumb idea as the authors of this page.  &mdash; ciphergoth 19:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that's why I should stay in nuclear topics where I belong :) Count me as a Delete. And thanks for taking the time and setting me straight. --DV8 2XL 20:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unverifiable; either star trek technobabble or unpublished research. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I've tried various searches for variations on the concept and while there is material on the subject it was pretty much universally by uninformed novices and no had no real content. Leland McInnes 19:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable/original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-24 20:41Z 
 * Delete as unverifiable and probably OR. Pegasus1138 Talk 20:19, 26 February 2006 (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.