Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Display:none exploit

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. --Coredesat 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Display:none exploit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

no reference for 2 years. can't find a page from google about this exploit. i think that search engines are smart enough to ignore invisible elements. one more point is that if html isn't converted, why doesn't the user just post javascript? Fiveship 09:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no credible evidence that this is encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not a vulnerability/attack. What's next? The img "exploit" that allows websites to display goatse to its visitors? :) --- RockMFR 14:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isn't an exploit per-se. It's a technique that was once widely used as part of some exploits and by SEO companies/link spammers (just like using text-indent et al. to have content rendered but not displayed). The fact that the article doesn't make this obvious is quite telling, in my humble opinion. Anyway, it's pretty much a non-issue and I feel the technique in itself isn't notable enough, not to mention that fact that the article is completely unsourced. Seed 2.0 21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; no sources, so the article fails WP:V and WP:RS. *** Crotalus *** 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's not an 'exploit' but rather a method of keyword stuffing, and that page already mentions the use of CSS to hide keywords. -- Mithent 14:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources, not verifiable, no content, no context and inaccurate (not an exploit). In what way was this article encyclopedia-worthy again? --Tinctorius 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, yet another good find. RFerreira 07:12, 5 May 2007 (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.