Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covert Redirect

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 00:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Covert Redirect

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

Not entirely sure what to do with this mess, so sending it to AfD, since it was an article at one time, rather than RfD. I declined speedy deletion as db-author is not applicable. I think deleting this mess would be the best option. Safiel (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page was previously blanked and I decided to leave it that way for the time being. Safiel (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have gone through the article history and did a Google search on the subject. What I found was an initially overblown reaction to something that was quickly determined not to be a serious threat. A burst of mostly industry coverage, then very little after that. Given this, I think it fails WP:GNG and guidelines relating to computer malware. Therefore, I would definitely go with delete for this. Safiel (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if redirection is not a reasonable option. I turned this page into a redirect with this rationale: "redirect, this is one person's name for a known security flaw; too many other problems here (copyvio, COI, non-encyclopaedic content and tone)", principally to deal with the copyright problem. It still seems to me that OAuth#Security is a reasonable target for redirection, but User:192.249.47.209 apparently disagrees. This isn't my field, I have no strong opinion one way or the other. As Safiel says, the concept does not appear to have the notability to justify an article at this title. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would note that if redirect is the ultimate result of this AfD, it should be proceeded by deletion of the current incarnation to kill the edit history and then redirected. That being said, I still prefer just plain delete, with no redirect. Safiel (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in case it's not clear from what I wrote above, I'd have no objection to that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2015 (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.