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. Delete !votes were all for short article, all keeps for the current state of the article, so all delete-reasoning is not applicable anymore. SoWhy 15:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Managed Security Service[edit]

Managed Security Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No indication of particular notability. Nothing more than a dictionary definition. Contested PROD. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete The question here is not notability, as a google search for the exact phrase turns up many relevant hits. The question is whether the article can ever be more than a dictionary definition. I would argue right now that the article should be deleted as I am not confident any meaningful content can be added to make this entry encyclopedic. However, if such material can be added, I would change my vote to KEEP as the concept seems to be notable. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have an article on information security, and frankly I find it hard to imagine that any content that might ever appear here could support a separate article rather than being merged to the existing one. Also, the non-standard capitalization of the title of this article makes me suspicious. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply not notable on it's own. It is on the fence regarding WP:DICTIONARY and could go eather way and as such, my weight is on the encyclopedic nature of this one line article... not going to expand on it's own as an article. My WP:HEY is that the creater or another editor show expansion in an encyclopedic way. --Pmedema (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like my WP:HEY has been satisfied. It appears to now pass WP:N and WP:RS --Pmedema (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was the one who re-created the article. I assumed that WP had an article on MSSP's, but when I found out that we didnt, I added one. I really don't think it fits into the InfoSec article because yes, it is related to infosec, but it is a whole industry in and of itself. One of the largest MSSP's is SecureWorks, of which we have a nice WP article on. [1] To me, this is a subject matter that deserves an article. But honestly, if the consensus is that we shouldn't, that's fine with me--The only vested interest I have in this article is helping WP to become a more complete, comprehensive encyclopedia. Anapologetos (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's enough external references to write a good article about the subject, should someone care to do so. It seems to be notable enough to satisfy the guidelines. Wronkiew (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2008 (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.