Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Host Proof Storage

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. The one keep comment appears to hand-wave at sources, that there is shown no evidence of existing, and a strong case against them existing is made after the relist. Courcelles 00:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Host Proof Storage

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

I do not think that this encryption technology is likely to be notable per WP:N. The references it cites do not appear to be independent and/or reliable, and there are zero Google Books, News and Scholar hits for this phrase. Sandstein 13:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Host-Proof Storage and Host-Proof Hosting appear to be widely notable terms. References could be improved but article does not need to be deleted. --Kvng (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Michael Mahemoff talked in his book Ajax Design Patterns and on the Ajax Patterns wiki of his book about Host Proof Hosting, the source of Host Proof Storage .--MMpop (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2011 (PST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first I tried to rescue this by filling the citations. However, it looks like the exact term "Host Proof Storage" is used by only one source, this blog posting from Kuapay, and it looks like the article was paigerized mostly from that posting. The diagrams look lifted from that page, which has a copyright asserted. A single blog posting using the term sure sounds like a neologism. To be notable, at least one reliable source independent of the developer would be needed. The book and The use of upper case letters would also seem to assert it is a proper noun, a specific product or service? After all, it sounds like the idea is just a trivial application of encryption on a network, nothing really novel. It just states that three or four times, so could easily be summarized down to a sort paragraph. Perhaps just merge into computer software or Cloud computing security? W Nowicki (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2011 (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.