Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evil twin (wireless networks)


 * 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. W.marsh 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Evil twin (wireless networks)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

some journalist tries to create a "fancy" new name for Man-in-the-middle attack, probably hoping to follow in the footsteps Jesse James Garrett, and wikipedia automatically gets an article on it? this is vanity, plain and simple. Misterdiscreet 04:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet sourcing requirements. Neologalism? --RaiderAspect 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Maybe redirect to Man-in-the-middle attack? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The term wasn't invented by a journalist, but by a UK security expert some two years ago and has some currency in the tech press. It is described as a variant of man-in-the-middle. One problem with that article and a merge is that it's almost wholly about cryptography as opposed to the more general intrusion principle.--Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * cryptography was invented to "solve" the man-in-the-middle problem. sure, some cryptographic algorithms solve the problem better then others, but even an algorithm that's susceptible to replay attacks can still provide protection against "passive" eavesdropping. if the man-in-the-middle article doesn't make this clear, the solution doesn't seem to me to be to create a new article, but rather, to "improve" the existing article Misterdiscreet 14:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We need not merge every single similar thing to its greatest abstraction. There appears to be sufficient material for an article on the particulars of this, if you will, specific type of man-in-the-middle attack. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Man-in-the-middle attack -- it's a specific and now rather common example. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 19:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Now it has sourcing from 5 reliable sources. The term is used by the Illinois attorney general and various computer journals and newspapers. Disagree with merge to Man in the middle which is a cryptography article. This is about some crook with a laptop sitting next to you in the airport waiting room. Edison 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * a crook with a laptop sitting next to you in the airport waiting room is man in the middle. if that is not clear from reading the man in the middle article, the man in the article needs to be improved. one well written article is better then two badly written ones. for now, i suggest you read the Beyond cryptography section of the man-in-the-middle article. as i said, cryptography is, with varying degrees of effectiveness, the solution to the general problem. the solution and the problem should be discussed in the same article. or maybe you also think that XSS should to be split off to it's own article? i disagree with that and with this. in fact, i think your misunderstanding of man-in-the-middle reenforces the need for this article and man-in-the-middle to, at the very least, be merged. Misterdiscreet 22:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep thanks to sourcing by Edison. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but requires a fair amount of cleanup. Useight 06:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with man-in-the-middle attack. Neither article is particularly long, and evil twin seems to just be a specific variant of man-in-the-middle. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article should make a reference to man-in-the-middle-attack, since that is what an evil twin is used for; it's not a specific case of it, though, it's a tool you can use for it. Capmango 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten and sourced, this is a subject we should be covering in an encyclopedic fashion. RFerreira 06:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.