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. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact (security)

[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a jargon guide. The only content in this article is quoted directly from sources. Lacks evidence of notability. Pnm (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a stub on a notable technical concept to me. One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary article, and stubs are often poorly written; but I think there's plenty of scope to develop this into a good encyclopaedia article, like thousands of others on technical concepts. bobrayner (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what is that scope that you see, specifically? Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a dictionary definition. I fail to see how this dictionary definition, that is formatted as a dictionary definition, has a scope for significant expansion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is only an instance of normal use of the word "impact." No special insiderness in the IT world is needed to understand the meaning. You might as well as have an article on "Incident (security)". Jaque Hammer (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with Jaque Hammer. This is not a specialized use of the word impact. I wouldn't even say it was "jargon" as the OP stated. It is an example of the word being used in a sentence within an IT environment. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)--Takamaxa (Talk) 02:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Impact (security) with Information security. It is still a useful term to know but maybe not enough content to justify having its own page on the topic. I would rather keep the information and sources in Information security rather than delete.
Delete as copyvio of the cited source. This use of copyrighted text to constitute essentially the whole of an article goes beyond a permitted brief quotation. In addition, the page fails WP:DICDEF. Sandstein 10:14, 6 January 2011 (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.