Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partial password

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. Geschichte (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial password[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I couldn't establish that it has the significance or coverage to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-established concept, with coverage in numerous reliable sources. The fact that it has been "Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years" (in other words has had a notability tag on it for that long) is not a reason for deletion. Many inappropriate tags stay on articles for years, and others which were appropriate when they were first put there remain long after the issues they refer to have been rectified, just because nobody removes them. The king of the sun (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The way to resolve the category issue is to remove the drive-by banner tag. That was placed in 2009 when the page was first created as a sourceless stub. The page has since been expanded and sources added but such banner tags don't get attention because they are so vague and indiscriminate. The existence of a stale and erroneous banner tag is not a reason to delete per WP:NOTCLEANUP. You have to read and understand the topic, not its tags. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG based on significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources [1][2][3][4]. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above comments. This is notable enough with significant coverage to justify an article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable concept, and easily meets GNG. I will note that it's also interesting, but that is irrelevant (WP:INTERESTING). BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2021 (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.