Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Statistical Block Encryption Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Statistical_Block_Encryption

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Statistical Block Encryption (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)

Summary of Reasons for Deletion

Article does not source the major claims made, including many exceptional claims identified by use of phrases like "designed to defeat", "not subject to attack models and methods of Cryptanalysis", "cannot be used against the algorithm", and others.

Article uses several sources written by the author of the algorithm, without 3rd party sources that specifically have mention of the Anti-Statistical Block Encryption (ASBE) algorithm. Other sources include press releases by ASBE author's company, whitepapers hosted on ASBE author's personal or company website.

Many references are attached to claims in article, but analysis of references show that claims are not supported.

StickyWidget (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied From Talk Page

Having difficulty finding 3rd party sources on ASBE algorithm in cryptography literature WP:SOURCES.

Doesn't meet internet search test WP:GOOGLETEST for 3rd party sources. Searches for "ASBE algorithm", "Anti-Statistical Block Encryption" only return articles by algorithm author, author's company, or press releases WP:SELFPUBLISH.

Some article sources were informative, but did not validate the claims in the article they were associated with, and were removed.

Statements in "Cryptographic Contributions" section are wholly unsourced once references were reviewed, and appear exceptional WP:REDFLAG.

Examples

1. SysAdmin, Audit, Network, Security Institute White Paper - Doesn't discuss how the ASBE "is not subject to attack models and methods of Cryptanalysis" as stated in WP article

1. Department of the Arny Field Manual - Poorly cited, cannot find reference to ASBE or how it "is not subject to attack models and methods of Cryptanalysis" as stated in WP article
2. Tech Target Definitions Types of Cryptanalysis defined - Informative, but doesn't discuss how ASBE "is not subject to attack models and methods of Cryptanalysis" as stated in WP article
3. BIS/NSA ECCN 5D992.c Mass Market encryption with large key lengths - Informative, but doesn't provide evidence that the ASBE was evaluated as stated in WP article
4. Prem Sobel Background Research New Statistical Algorithm and Work Leading to ASBE Algorithm - Doesn't validate statement that ASBE was " first encryption to use variable encryption keys that scale in size from 2008 bits up to 2 GB". Also, link is to website that appears to be self published by author of algorithm (Prem Sobel), and is not a 3rd party source
5. Prem Sobel White Paper ASBE Defeats Statistical Analysis and Other Cryptanalysi - Doesn't validate statement that ASBE was "first encryption to use variable encryption keys that scale in size from 2008 bits up to 2 GB". Additionally, whitepaper is written by author of ASBE algorithm (Prem Sobel), and is not a 3rd party source.

StickyWidget (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted this afd, No comment on it's merit for now. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Proprietary encrypted data or incubate - this is too technical to be a stand-along article, and too lightly referenced as well. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 4 October 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks sources independent of the inventor. The publicity for the algorithm includes some strange and probably self-contradictory claims about key and passwords. Looks like advertising by the inventor. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. I agree that this looks like an advert. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:30, 8 October 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.