Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiaolaeux


 * 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. – Juliancolton  | Talk 04:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Xiaolaeux

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

Hoax. No refs. Google has never heard of it. The description seems very dubious. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think it reads like a hoax, but stringing together a set of encryption algorithms is probably not going to lead to a notable software product. Shadowjams (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability has nothing to do with how a program is constructed. Uncle G (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One is supposed to do more work at AFD than simply look at the article and form an opinion as to whether it reads like a hoax. One is supposed to look for sources, double-checking the nominator and other AFD discussion participants, so that we can be confident that multiple pairs of eyes have all independently applied our deletion and content policies, and that the conclusion is thus the right one. The article cites no sources, and, searching, I can find no sources at all, anywhere, documenting any such thing.  This article is unverifiable, which is our standard for hoaxes and falsehoods, just as verifiability is our proxy for accuracy.  No sources, therefore no article, per Deletion policy. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This encryption type is currently in development, but is not yet complete. You will not be able to find it on google because it simply hasn't been released yet. --Fejj the ritual (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then Wikipedia is not the place to come. This is an encyclopaedia.  It is not a publisher of first instance for new inventions and ideas.  For publishing new things, proper channels exist.  You want to tell the world about new advances in computing?  Submit a paper to CACM or to an appropriate IEEE journal.  Go through the proper process of peer review, fact checking, and publication in a reputable journal (or other work) by identifiable people with good reputations for accuracy to uphold, that is required before things can be in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Verifiability problems.  X-san, which it mentions as a 'root language', I can only find mentioned as a file system format for large disks.  The claims regarding the compression capabilities of this... thing is a little odd too, given that 1) you can run always run inputs through compression before encrypting, and 2) the compression ratio of a compression system will always depend on the source that is fed in, making blanket statements about compression suspect.  What is meant here by 'encryption language'? Is it a language for writing encryption algorithms?  An algorithm?  A script that runs input through a batch of several existing algorithms?  --Clay Collier (talk) 12:49, 5 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.