Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frame injection

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. John254 00:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frame injection[edit]

Contested PROD. Article makes no assertion of notability. In addition, the article shows POV bias in singling out Internet Explorer. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While there are a number of GHits, one should be aware that the phrase "frame injection" also refers to a type of plastic Injection moulding (see here). -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Created disambiguation page for that. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you have read the Secunia reference, it will say that it "affects IE 5.01, IE 5.5, IE 6 and IE 7". Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How reliable are Secunia? I must admit to not having heard of them. In any case this vulnerability also affects Firefox and Mozilla, Konqueror and, in fact, most browsers.
Keep. Google reports more than 20K hits on the phrase. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of these have to do with web browsers rather than plastic molding. This seems to be a notable form of browser exploit. Given the nature of the subject, I'd be inclined to treat web sources as reliable. POV issues suggest that this needs expansion rather than deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a real technical term. However, as it stands it is only a DICTIONARY entry. Ningauble (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - article has multiple sources and in line citations from non-trivial parties. The POV issue is cause for expansion, not deletion. The article is already beyond what a dictionary definition is, and could be easily expanded past that point with the multitude of additional sources out there. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable browser exploit. Can be expanded, and is already more than just a dicdef. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It's very notable and has good sources. RockManQ (talk) 21:53, 27 August 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.