Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetAdmin

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. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GetAdmin

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

No clear notability or potential for expansion, nor any references. No claim at all of significance. MopSeeker (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, short page about an 18 years old NT4 vulnerability. Two references and two external links, which could be converted into references if desired. I checked the insecure.org link and it looked good (=interesting enough) from my POV. Definitely not a case for "keep and expand". –Be..anyone (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no indication it meets WP:GNG; search found only a few results in viruses indexes, and nothing showing it had any short- or long-term impact. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not likely to ever be expanded, not likely to ever have any use again. Seems more appropriate for exploitapedia. While it does not appear to fit any specific notability guideline, to me a notable exploit would need to have a significant impact, which I see no evidence of this doing. ― Padenton|✉ 20:59, 11 May 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.