Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/String exploits: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:07, 22 February 2011

Revision as of 02:40, 23 February 2011

Line 6:

:{{la|String exploits}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/String exploits|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 19#{{anchorencode:String exploits}}|View log]]</noinclude>)

:({{Find sources|String exploits}})

<strike>I cannot find any citations that establish notability. Plenty of cites for [[Format string attack|format string attacks]], but not for the exploit described here. Article has had unreferenced tag since December 2009, Notability tag and Technical tags since March 2008. Last edit (other than minor typo fixes and such) was in 2007, and there have never been any discussions on the talk page.</strike> [[User:guymacon| Guy Macon ]] 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

:Given the improvements made since I wrote the above, I think the article is now worth keeping. Does anyone think it should be deleted? If not, do I need to do something special to withdraw the afD or just let it run its course? [[User:guymacon| Guy Macon ]] 02:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 01:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)</small>

Line 17 ⟶ 19:

*::Seconded; it might in principle be a notable topic but the content would have to be redone from scratch. I think it's probably best to redirect it, until anybody ever actually manages to write encyclopaedic content on this subject. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 23:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' By itself it is not notable, and the article only discusses concatenation without highlighting how this, by itself, is an exploit. I believe that other articles such as [[Vulnerability (computing)]] already cover this area. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 11:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

<strike>*'''Delete''' I just looked at [[Vulnerability (computing)]] and asked myself if this article gives the reader anything not found there. Nothing as far as I can tell.</strike> [[User:guymacon| Guy Macon ]] 13:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

:The above was true of the article at that time, but is not true now that the article has been rewritten. [[User:guymacon| Guy Macon ]] 02:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' It seems to me to be a disambiguation page, with a lot of needless yack and opinion. Added a source, dropped the yack, dropped the opinion. Format isn't right. [[User:Shajure|Shajure]] ([[User talk:Shajure|talk]]) 06:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

*:Like beauty, this must have been in the eye of the beholder. All the exploits given now as examples were originally listed in a final section '''See also (<u>other</u> string problems)''', while the original examples were eliminated, so to me it seems that whatever the original author meant is virtually disjoint from what is described here now. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 13:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)