Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OWASP

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. Kubigula (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OWASP

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no assertion of notability - fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG with no independent sources. I personally would like sources to be found, and the article improved per WP:FAILN. suggestions? Widefox; talk 14:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found an event at Microsoft Cambridge, and this article on SDTimes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good start, but we need more than one per WP:CORPDEPTH "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Widefox; talk 09:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Here's the MS link, [1], not a RS. Widefox; talk 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There most notable feature is the top 10 standard adopted for security audits, here's another article [2]

and here is another [3] , and here it is talked about by Nessus [4] Though I agree the article here sucks. Another possibility is to turn it into OWASP top 10, an equivalent of PCI DSS Seektrue (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2013 (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.