Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Source Security Testing Methodology Manual
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) at 23:07, 16 July 2011 (Closing debate, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 23:07, 16 July 2011 by Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was delete)
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Open Source Security Testing Methodology Manual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not sure wether this is an ad or the manual itself but it is ridiculously spammy and should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete perhaps if the book itself is willing to be open-sourced, it could be moved to WikiBooks? The author Pete Herzog also looks like a living person bio that should also go, with no independent reliable sources. W Nowicki (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable independent sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Certainly, lots of Google hits, but nothing I could find that could be used as a source for notability. This article appears to be WP:PROMOTION. I agree with W Nowicki that the associated Pete Herzog should also be deleted, also for lack of sources to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 18:47, 10 July 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.