Talk:Security architecture
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
computer think edit
I am say, computer think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.171.161 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Sources? Citations? edit
AFAIK, that definition differs substantially with what is usually understood as "security architecture", eg: as per CISSP BOK. Plus, no sources are mentioned. Will try to find out some "verifiable" sources and improve this article a bit; any help, much appreciated!
Regards, DPdH (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, nothing seems to have changed since my comment over a year ago! Should this article be improved, or made candidate for deletion? I'd prefer the first approach, however I couldn't get hands on relevant bibliography. Can any other editor/s please help?
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Not clear edit
The language of the entries under computer security is jargon. If I knew computer security jargon (e.g., "design artifact"), I would not be looking it up on Wikipedia, I would be somewhere entirely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.74.165 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Proposed deletion edit
Yes. Redirect it to Computer security. This one is short without being sweet, and not worth repairing. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- So will you please formalize your opinion with this template? --> {{Proposed deletion endorsed}} --M4gnum0n (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Already been handled by another editor. Reducing a useless and little-watched article to a redirect is a much less fussy procedure. No need to ask a Admin or start a discussion in a central notice board. Just mention the idea in Talk, wait a couple days for objections, do it, and face the possible storm of controversy from those who didn't pay attention to Talk. In this case someone else did it right away, with what might have been a significant risk of controversy. Slightly too hasty in my opinion but what the heck. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)