Talk:Security architecture

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

This redirect is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Computing

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

computer think[edit]

I am say, computer think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.171.161 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So will you please formalize your opinion with this template? --> {{Proposed deletion endorsed}} --M4gnum0n (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

All's well that ends well.--M4gnum0n (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]