Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense in Depth (computing)

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defense in Depth (computing)

Reads like original research, and even if it's not original research, it's written wackily. Delete unless it is shown not to be original research. --Nlu (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's an important IT security principle, not original research at all. See "defense in depth" security on Google. Gazpacho 06:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that I've removed the rambling bits. Gazpacho 06:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Military Defence in depth or Keep. This is not OR. - WeniWidiWiki 06:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs work. Move to defense in depth (computing) as this is not a proper name. --Dhartung | Talk 09:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article only pretends to be about the real military concept, defense in depth. It is instead a slogan for the apparently government-sponsored organization "Information Assurance Technical Framework" which may be a real and notable organization, but the slogan that it uses is not Notable in its own right..21:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep, important IT security concept. Should also be moved as per Dhartung. Spacepotato 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this topic is real, it deserves considerably more coverage, and its more than a slogan. renaming Depth to depth is good too. GB 05:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a great article at this point, but a very important concept in computer security. Agree with Dhartung re lowercase. —David Eppstein 08:00, 22 February 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.