Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secure input and output handling Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Secure_input_and_output_handling

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secure input and output handling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unreferenced "How-to" essay tagged since 2013 Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, that's an essay/how-to guide. A redirect to data validation is worth considering; I would weakly oppose it, because it is not exactly the same topic, but avoiding broken external links is a worthy goal. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A correct redirect would be a generic one to Computer security, since the discussed title is as generic as it may be; after all, "input and output" is 66%, while 33% is "process the data" :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that looks like an overbroad redirect (not sure "overbroad" is the correct term here?). We would not redirect Unnotablia Subsubsubspecia to Animal. If anything, that is an argument against redirecting at all. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unreferenced article with essay/how-to and WP:OR issues, particularly the claims that some methods are better than others without supporting refs. A search turned up incidental mentions including this book, but no significant coverage of this term.Dialectric (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons above. Dbsseven (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2017 (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.