Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secure SMS Messaging Protocol


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Secure SMS Messaging Protocol

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

My thanks to the hammer wielding otter (see below). The nomination should have read: "This article is a battleground between two rival proponents of something or other and appears to be references to their papers and a massive episode of COI. I'm wholly unsure that the article is about something that even should be here, nor whether it is notable, verifiable or anything else.  The whole thing is masked by two editors who seem to be having a pissing contest.  And yes, I am doing my best to assume good faith!

I think we need to discuss the topic and its notability and verifiablity and reach a consensus on keep/delete. This AfD may fire the necessary warning shot across the two contestants' bows, and we may end up with an encylopaedic article as a result. or no article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Timtrent tried to list this at afd but Twinkle crapped out and didn't finish its job. Fixed that for you. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's hammer wielding otters to you. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * oops! I acknowledge a plurality of otters.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They reject your reality and substitute their own. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing is real. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * zap it into a thousand pieces (until something better and completely NPOV appears, anyway) --AlisonW (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Doing a quick google search SafeSMS gets 1,830 hits, SMSSec gets 1,720 hits. These results seem to confirm the view that these are little used protocols falling below notability guidlines and article is really a platform to try and push these products. --Salix (talk): 08:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See related AfD at Articles for deletion/SSMS Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just done some quick research. As Secure SMS Messaging Protocol shows, there is a topic to be had here.  But the COI-motivated dispute between a researcher at Iran University of Science and Technology and a corporate vice president of CellTrust Corporation, both using multiple accounts and both on occasion not logging in, has largely hidden this from view.  There are, in fact, quite a lot of papers and articles on this subject, by more than just the two protagonists in this particular battle here at Wikipedia, to be had. Obviously this is the wrong title, since there's no one single protocol.  But I strongly suspect that there's enough source material for a breakout sub-article of Short Message Service, dealing with research into the security vulnerabilities of SMS and the various security mechanisms that can be added to it, to be written.  And we can get there from here by renaming this article and editing it, mercilessly. Uncle G (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes an article could be written, but I am unconvinced that even combined it really gets to the level to satisfy WP:NOTE. Quite what level would be required for Significant coverage? Ideally a review article by a third party to meet WP:SECONDARY. My feel is that all of these are very much in the Research part of R&D, have not gained much attention by the industry and are not ready for market. --Salix (talk): 18:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment what is interesting is that the two editors who wish to prevail are not so far interested in making any comment here, yet they soon notice when the other edits the article. This is the same with the related AfD (see above) and leads me inexorably to the conclusion that this article is simply a battleground and has no encyclopaedic value.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2009 (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.