Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qlink

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. MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qlink

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

Non-notable neologism, and the term "qlink" doesn't even appear in any of the sources cited Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All though I don't doubt the authors good intentions, this article is just made up by them with no references to sources not based on their own opinion.

QLink is an invented term by the author
As all the references are just about the articles authors opinion this is basically a single source article.
The text may mislead people to think this is actually related to quantum security - rather than just 'inspired' by the ideas of quantum theory.
The article makes it sound like this is a new idea but its been about for a while: for instance www.destructingmessage.com (copyright date says 2006).
The article makes it sound way more safe than it is failing to mention:

No detection mechanisms for Man-in-the-middle attacks
The message could be just intercepted and read by anyone else
The 'QLink' server could be compromised or maliciously run

The articles suggests this would be suitable for sending "credit card information, passwords, confidential information", and also for national security. I would doubt you would find any security professional who would say this was (as described) suitable for any of these. In fact I would hope they would all say it should never be used for such things.

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per
WP:NFT. Nha Trang 22:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not notable Op47 (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2014 (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.