Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JOSEKI (cipher)

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. There is a consensus that NSA documents alone are not enough to demonstrate notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JOSEKI (cipher)

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

Article has no open sources. The three references listed include a caveat that they are classified. It is mentioned in some documents online referencing military radio equipment, but there is no description of its operation. In addition, there may be a concern about unreviewed classified information here. 226Trident_talk 16:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — First of all, I think that the NSA can take care of its own secrecy concerns and that we don't have to worry about them at AFD. I have a feeling that if they wanted that article gone, it'd already be gone. More to the point, the patents which mention this encryption scheme show that it's real (see this google scholar search). Once we know that the thing is real, the sources in the article show that it meets the GNG. We should assume good faith even though they're not accessible easily, since that's explicitly not required in
WP:RS ("It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.") Two of them are listed as "releasable." Finally, it can't be all that secret, because here it is as one of the multiple choices in a study guide on network security and cryptography (not claiming this as a reliable source).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

These articles mention the algorithm(s) by name, but don't actually detail its operation and functionality. The caveat of "releasable" does not refer to release to the general public, but instead refers to release of classified information to relevant allies (NATO, ISAF, GBR, etc.). The information is still classified at the level of SECRET, and is still national security information. There is no way to verify the existence or content of these sources. My understanding of consensus is that classified documents are considered primary sources, and under GNG they would not be considered enough to establish notability outright.

226Trident_talk 14:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't understood that about the meaning of "releasable". I think I'll let my keep stand for now, though, because there are so many sources that aren't easily accessible. We take their existence and accuracy on faith in general. This is an extreme case of the difficulty of accessing sources, but it's interesting enough that I'd like to see what the community thinks.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think that NSA documents about this cipher are sufficient to establish notability. I don't see any sort of coverage about this algorithm outside of the NSA material. Even if it is secret, a notable secret algorithm si something that I would still expect to see some sort of coverage (including informed expert speculation) on it in security related books or journals. I didn't find such material but I'm prepared to change my mind if somebody can dig up some material. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's nonsense to claim that there are no RS (merely to demonstrate existence and notability, we're not looking for implementation details) because there clearly are sources, but we're going to refuse to talk about them. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
WP:NOTCENSORED. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete None of the sources presented either in the article or at this AFD are indicative of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Notability requires coverage in multiple independent sources, and all citations that come from one author/publication/organisation (in this case the NSA) only count as a single source, so it's not established as notable. Could possibly merge if there's a target. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2012 (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.