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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OWASP (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)

Speedy was removed by Feezo so here we are and I echo my comments before for this being questionably notable and improvable as the best links I found was only here, here, here and here but none of it seems convincing enough of a better article. It's worth noting the two products (listed at the side) were also deleted at separately timed AfDs (2009 and 2012) so I'm not entirely sure if this one is solidly keepable. Notifying past users and taggers Widefox, SarekOfVulcan and Richhoncho SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete blatant promo (-1) WP:NOTPROMO together with borderline notability WP:GNG WP:CORP WP:CORPDEPTH (+0.5). There's sources at my first AfD, may be WP:TOOSOON, or just a case of all the promo needing WP:TNT to start over. (Note many COI editors and SPA accounts on talk) Widefox; talk 07:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but with rewrite. The article has no citations and is written like an advertisment, although I think that the topic is notable and has been featured in secondary sources (although to an extent that we would ahve to crop some of the information). There is no rule against referenceing homepages where other sources exist, and there is alos no rule that says a bad article is one for deltion. RailwayScientist (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain? Articles with no citations get deleted as failing WP:GNG. Promo articles like this can get deleted per WP:TNT. Widefox; talk 09:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: OWASP's material is surely basic reference for anyone working in web development or security, so I am surprised to see the organisation here. However, an "it's notable" argument is clearly inappropriate; I have added various book and publication references into the article as references. One can also find OWASP being referenced by UK government advice and by the UK Information Commissioner. All in all, for me there is enough to pass WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'd rather keep this mess than WP:TNT? So who's ever going to fix it - it's been years and got worse. Although WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, I've never seen this many WP:SPA editors shoot themselves in the foot. In principle this should be a notable organisation, I agree, but I didn't even get a straight answer on the talk to what sort and this EXT link promo SPA farm is just a mess. Would you stub it? If kept, can we agree to be more strict about COI editors disclosing and edit requesting on the talk. There's 20-30 or more SPAs on this! Widefox; talk 09:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, at minimum I would expect to keep sufficient on the organisation to meet an encyclopaedia user's "who?" query (e.g. after reading that ICO document) and enough to meet a basic "what?" query, which for me would be the OWASP Top Ten paragraph, plus probably those on the ASVS and the Testing Guide. Detail on tools such as ZAP and Webgoat are less important and can be found by the interested user on the OWASP site itself. So losing the Chapters section and pruning the Projects section would create a sufficiently improved article in my view. AllyD (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree to stub it, I will change to weak keep. Widefox; talk 09:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm interested in others' input on whether the suggested changes are appropriate, so after allowing an interval, I'll probably apply a WP:BOLD edit along these lines. As to the article's future, I take your point about the risk of it being weighed down by COI edits. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This has been on my TODO list for quite some time. I've worked in security and found OWASP a useful reference. Granted, it is not well written, but I will, in time, get to it. I have texts with some info for citation. Softtest123 (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If we rewrite the advertisement-like sentences (specifically removing the mention of the non-profit organization in the lede, or perhaps moving it to the end of the article), this could be a useful article. The subject is in itself useful and notable, it's just that the article for it needs a little work. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rewrite. I am one of those geeks with a CISSP certification, & I can tell you that this is an organization that produces research & software that is valuable to the computer security community. While the article can use additional citations, the thirteen citations establish notability, particularly in its field of knowledge. Lose the promo, not the article. There is no need to throw out this baby with the bathwater. Peaceray (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2015 (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.