- 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. discounting non-policy based arguments and ip votes. No sourcing adduced so fails GNG Spartaz Humbug! 04:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bubble Babble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously prodded. No indication of notability. No sources at all; some ELs but they are to a wiki, the author's site (I think), a source code example and a man page. A search turns up these links then similar results (code implementations) but nothing like a reliable source. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what is the problem of a source code example and a manpage for a widely-used piece of software, particularly the latter (if some citation of that SSH is widely used is needed, I can try to come up with one...)? Computer program, computer hardware, and related entries do not have to have academic or reliably-fact-checking journalistic citations to have reliable sources. (Otherwise, what are all those video game entries doing there? Or are you proposing that those also be deleted?) In regard to implementations of an algorithm, I note that just because some people can't read the computer code isn't an argument against it being a valid source - just because a source is in another language than English doesn't mean it's invalid. Allens (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, one alternative would be a merger of this and some of the other articles that talk about the conversion of numbers into hopefully-pronounceable pseudowords or similar (not sure as to the proper name for this - any idea?). Bubble Babble would then be a subset of this page. Allens (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment when you mentioned that SSH is widely used I thought (but got distracted from posting) that a merger there might then make sense, if this is not independently notable. I know nothing about SSH though, and don't see it mentioned in that article, so have no idea how it would be done or if it makes sense in the context of that article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... interesting thought. It actually makes a bit more sense to merge it into ssh-keygen, which is the program that uses Bubble Babble within SSH. (I'm still more thinking of other mergers - there is quite a bit of usage of "make something human-readable" in cryptography, from what (possibly outdated) information I have about the field. I will inquire over on WikiProject Cryptography. Allens (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page must be kept. I wonder why should I read through an ssh-keygen page if what i want to know is just the meaning of "bubble babble". Having a bubble babble page is just what I expect from an encyclopedia. the important thing is the "human readable" thing without the need of any source. I found this page useful as it is, and just wanted to let you know my idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.237.252.114 (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable Snake oil (cryptography). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How in the world is it cryptographic snake oil? It isn't trying to encrypt anything - the connection to cryptography is that it's useful to help remember key signatures et al. Allens (talk) 13:30, 6 November 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.