Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blitz ciphers

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. Michig (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blitz ciphers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Along with the laundry list of problems, this article doesn't appear to assert any notability, and more ominously may be a hoax. Its here for community input on its fate. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am the person who put up the original (incorrect) deletion nomination. Aside from the fact that it is quite clearly a hoax, its only citations seem to be on fringe/hobbyist blogs which all refer mack to ciphermysteries.com. Eladynnus (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No evidence whatsoever of notability. PianoDan (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.