Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decimal sequences for cryptography
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Decimal sequences for cryptography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No secondary sources to establish notability. Although "decimal sequences" are used in at least two published computer science papers, this does not suffice to meet the general notability guidelines. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge as a valid encyclopedic topic with academic coverage, could be merged into the relevant Cryptography section rather than deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Pinging some people from the talk page @Calbaer, R.e.s., Arvindn, and Matt Crypto: would love some input. BenKuykendall (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: no usable content and no particular hope of this title supporting an article. It seems like the only reason this exists is as a ridiculous plug of a the crankish looking Subhash Kak. The article was formerly a redirect to the Kak article, but an IP editor un-redirected it and two similarly dubious other articles back in 2007, and I see no reason to think the redirect is worth having, either. --JBL (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: it is based on a single fringe journal article and is nonsense. Tangentially, I'd like to echo JBL's point that the author of said journal article is a crank, which is not at all hinted at on his Wikipedia page. -- Arvindn (talk)
- Why is it nonsense? I ask because this is clearly a very poort article, hinting at an interesting topic. I don't know enough about it (and certainly didn't learn enough!) to know whether it's "nonsense" or not. Is there some clear reason to demonstrate that it clearly ought to be discarded as such? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- The first two paragraphs (through the example) give definitions of mathematical objects that are meaningful, described properly elsewhere, and have nothing to do with cryptography. The connection with cryptography comes only from the last two sentences, and they are merely an advertisement for a paper by a crank. They have no actual content, and there is no hope of replacing them with something that does have content (because, for example, the sequences described above absolutely could not serve as pseudorandom sequences). --JBL (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why is it nonsense? I ask because this is clearly a very poort article, hinting at an interesting topic. I don't know enough about it (and certainly didn't learn enough!) to know whether it's "nonsense" or not. Is there some clear reason to demonstrate that it clearly ought to be discarded as such? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: No real information aside from an allusion/reference to a 33-year-old journal paper that's been referenced a respectable but not large amount since. Calbaer (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)