Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idiot code

Idiot code

Aside from this article, there appears to be no indication that "idiot codes" even exist. Brian Jason Drake 09:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found in a Google Books search other than something in Robert Heinlein's novel Friday. --Dhartung | Talk 09:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. —SlamDiego_←T 11:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak delete or merge: Well, I basically feel like one while reading that article. Not that I don't understand it, but I don't understand it. At best, this all sounds like WP:OR. Can't really dig up too much information, either. The phrase is fairly generic that it catches too much in several search engines, using different styles of quoting. Yngvarr 12:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amend I've struck my delete to weak delete or merge. There has been some context added, which makes it much clearer than it was prior. But it ultimately sounds like one-time pad, as mentioned below. I'd also support a redir as suggested by Ronin. Yngvarr 13:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe this is a valid technique for securing communications, but I remember it being called something else. However, the article as it stands reads as original research, and provides no sources for the use of this term in this manner. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way -- this must have been studied and named at some point in the history of cryptography. It has similarities to cryptolect/cant or even codetalking. It isn't technically a cipher, though. --Dhartung | Talk 20:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Perhaps Code (cryptography)#One-time code? -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nah, this is obviously something that could be used more than once and would require creative encoding, e.g. in response to conditions. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, and unsourced original research at that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a shame this isn't sourced properly - it could be sourced it would definitely be a keep, so I hope the author is able to source it before it gets deleted. Skip1337 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't count on that, unless someone can track down any information about the IP address that created this article.
  The article was created by 203.113.232.109 and its creation appears to have been the only substantial edit ever made to this article. The user page does not exist. The only edits ever made to the talk page relate to the notifications of the proposed deletion, speedy deletion and Articles for Deletion nominations. The creation of this article was the only edit ever made by this IP. Brian Jason Drake 01:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was proded, deproded (and in the same edit, had a merge proposed) by me, nominated for speedy deletion, had the merge proposal removed, had the speedy deletion tag removed and nominated for Articles for Deletion by me. Brian Jason Drake 02:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll take a wack at it. - Operknockity (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you found a few web refs and the Heinlein use. I had found those, too, before I proposed speedy deletion; I did not, however, find much of anything in books, which is where I usually go when looking for notability of a concept. I'm sure this kind of code has a real name, I just don't recall it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found it used in several interviews. It seems it may be intelligence agency terminology. I've added some info and references. References are a little hard to search for with all the programmers complaining about their own form of "idiot code". If you decide to Keep, it may warrant a disambiguation page! =) - Operknockity (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amend - I've found other people using it, non-agency personnel. It does appear to be synonymous with or a variant of one-time code, not one-time pad (Thanks RobinBK). I'm not voting though because I'm too new to judge where these things should land. - Operknockity (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Holy Typo, Batman It's Ronin, not Robin... :P -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still don't feel this passes WP:N. One RS with a definition and one with a passing reference. Now, if One-time code were broken out to an article instead of a redirect and the sourced paragraphs that have been added to this article were moved there as a variant, I would have no objection. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I've done all I can to fix and source the article, but it's not enough. There are a few idiosyncratic uses of this term, but none in serious sources about codes or cryptography that would suggest it is an actual term in use. Maybe it's just something a few people picked up from the Heinlein book. Call it idiosyncratic, neologism, or whatever, but not notable in spite of my best searching efforts. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Since it is similar but not one-time code (due to it's multiple uses capability) but obviously a term being used to define something that we can find no other term for, should we merge it into Code (cryptography) after the One-time code section? - Operknockity (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a brief section to say that such things have been called idiot codes would be OK in such an article, since there are a few sources. I recommend you go ahead and make such a section before this one goes away. Dicklyon (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - ...and here it is. I stripped it down a little but not enough to lose the references. Thoughts? - Operknockity (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the trivial unsourced parts and extra level of subsection heads; I hope you see that as better. And I fixed the case in Code (cryptography)#Idiot code, and made the article into a redirect (well, it will be after the tag is removed). Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The part you deleted as unsourced was actually taken from the original reference from the first line. I'm not saying that the information is needed but I would like to know the correct method to reference that for my own information.

More importantly, we have lost the example that I thought was useful in explaining what it is in the first place. I'm not sure I would have understood it's simplicity the way it is written now. I don't know when it was deleted, but I've added it back, slightly modified. - Operknockity (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should note that this discussion is now about Code (cryptography)#Idiot code and so should the discussion be moved there? - Operknockity (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]