Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NTP vandalism

Decision: Keep

With nobody apart from me favoring deletion and upon me retracting my request due to sufficiently established notability, I conclude that the article should not be deleted.

However, NPOV issues (tag added) and the related questions of merging remain and should from now on be discussed on the talk page of the hopefully to be renamed NTP vandalism page. Jens Nielsen 16:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding Discussion

I'm proposing this article for deletion. "NTP vandalism" produces a mere 179 google hits[1], every one of them referring to the D-link controversy. The first suggests that it is not a notable case, the second (and the first) that it is not a general term. I propose it be deleted unless it can be shown to be mentioned in major electronic news media or other major media. At this point, it seems more smear than anything suitable for wikipedia, and I likewise propose the links to this article to be removed. Jens Nielsen 13:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider slashdot as a "major electronic news media"? [2] stderr 13:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Engadget, they also use the expression "NTP vandalism" in their front page story: [3] Yehaah 07:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that an ongoing accurance like this would be of interrest. An example of relevance could be the 547 posts on http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/07/130209 since the artickle was published only 2 days ago. OS news has brougt information about the subject on http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14278 The large technolgy newspaper Ingenøren has had an artikle (this is where I first saw it) http://ing.dk/article/20060407/IT/104140001 Give it a few days and I'm sure it will gro on Google, it's a pretty fresh story. This article is not writen with the intent of making the manufacturers look bad, smear, or discredit them. It's an interesting part of IT history. Yehaah 14:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider a featured article on slashdot good enough. However, as far as I can tell it is not a featured article, it more looks like a post on Slashdot's discussion forum. That it has generated 500+ comments is interesting, but still 500 non-notable comments. The Danish technical magazine Ingeniøren is not a major circulation paper, even in Denmark, and of course it's a foreign magazine. I'm not convinced, but I'll recommend postponing deletion at least a week to see if the story hits major news, as you suggest it might. Jens Nielsen 15:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you got the idea that the Slashdot story isn't not a featured article. It was on the front page last Friday (April 6, 2006). Blackeagle 16:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not as far as I could tell, and you did not provide any link. Anyway, since it seems to have hit the Inquirer now [4], I'm no longer against its inclusion on notability grounds. Jens Nielsen 15:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: the article should be renamed, as 'NTP vandalism' is (so far) only used in this particular context, and hence does not qualify for use as a general term. I'd propose 'the D-link controversy'.Jens Nielsen 15:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the term NTP vandalism was first used for the D-Link controversy, the phenomenon it describes (undesirable or malicious use of NTP servers) is general. In fact, it makes quite a bit of sense that the term was coined with the second major incident. Back in 2003, the NETGEAR incident was unique. Now that the D-Link incident has occurred we've got two similar, clearly related incidents, so there's a need for a general term that encompasses both. Blackeagle 18:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get not a single google hit that does not include D-link[5], so I don't buy the generality argument. Please back up your statement of use outside of this context. Jens Nielsen 15:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider this an article that should be kept because of it's value to future embedded systems designers who may be saved from repeating the mistakes of D0Link and Netgear. Trapper 16:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for keeping this article. I second the argument that it helps embedded system designers to avoid the same kind of problem in the future. Heiko 10:26, 11 April 2006 (CEST)

I've been following google lately on the D-Link case. The keywords "Poul-Henning Kamp" "D-Link" have risen from 725 to 13.900 answers in two days. So the case is not only a small rumor, it's pretty widespread Yehaah 07:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget my measly 13.900 google answers, try your search for "NTP vandalism" again. I just got 76.300 google hits on that, 426 times as many as 3 days ago.

Merge with NTP - I say this should be a sub-section under the main NTP article. This is important information - perhaps by making this information available we can prevent some other boneheaded implementation later on, but it should NOT be a seperate article: a bonehead might look up Network Time Protocol, but he will NOT look up NTP vandalism. N0YKG 11:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think a mention of the expression under NTP would be good, but with 3 different known cases (so far) I think it need's it's own page.Yehaah 07:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't like the title of this article, using the word vandalism is not NPOV and in any case only one of the cases seems to even loosely fit what I would class as vandalism. I think at the least it would be best to rename it to something like "NTP server misuse" (with a redirect) but I would also lean towards slimming it down to just the basic facts and merging with the NTP/phk/D-Link/NETGEAR articles. NicM 15:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Strongly agree with your first point. It is highly POV, but "NTP server misuse" is no better. There is one party claiming the issue is 'vandalism', but that does not mean it IS vandalism. Find a better title, please. Jens Nielsen 15:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]