Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fragmented distribution attack Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fragmented_distribution_attack

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. The article certainly could benefit from more sources, but there is a strong consensus to keep the article at this time. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fragmented distribution attack

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

more research needed. Adi4094 (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having read the conference presentation, it seems that this is a means of attack that has been seen in the wild already (presentation says September 9, though I haven't found a news article about it yet). I bet there's more here - and I bet the attack vector goes by different names, which might be part of the reason it's hard to find material. But it smells notable! Would love some assistance finding out for sure...--Vivisel (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears important to me as well; it would be better to tag it as a stub and do a little additional research/expansion. Insorak ♫ talk 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the one and only source, this is a notable topic. The source appears credible. Let's keep this for now and wait if new sources arrive. If they don't, we should renominate this after some time. Offliner (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Incubate - Hmm, perhaps we should incubate this article; the topic definitely seems noteworthy, as other editors have attested to, and Symantec is certainly a high-profile name in electronic security. Why not give this article some time? Cocytus [»talk«] 01:32, 11 January 2010 (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.