Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphical Identification and Authentication

Non notable and poorly written, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list (WP:NOT), etc Verbal chat 08:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark for cleanup. Article lacks context, but describes an important technology that allows Windows to use logon authentication mechanisms more secure than the usual username/password combination. JulesH (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's not at all well-written. At the very least it needs a short introductory paragraph (which I am not capable of providing, or I would do so). The topic, though, has at least modest significance, and an article on the subject is useful. Tim Ross (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A secure login mechanism is notable and neither bad writing nor the indiscriminate list are relevant for deletion. Bad writing is specifically excluded as a valid reason for deletion, and the article is not a list, let alone an indiscriminate one. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my (probably too short) proposal. The poor quality of the article is not why I thought it should be deleted, but is not a good reason for keeping. The reason for deletion I proposed is notability, and I don't see why a secure logon process is inherently notable. The reference to WP:NOT was to the fact that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information - we don't have articles on all DLLs. Now, if I4m wrong and this DLL is notable then I have no problem with it having an article - but since it apparently is no longer used in Vista and Win7 I think it's unlikely. I could easily be swayed to a keep if any references to notability are presented. Thanks! Verbal chat 16:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not intolerably badly written. This is a description of an optional security feature in Microsoft Windows, apparently. The fact that this software is apparently from Microsoft weighs in its favor, since Microsoft doesn't really need to resort to inserting bogus Wikipedia articles for marketing purposes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]