Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Server side request forgery


 * 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. - Philippe 03:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Server side request forgery

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Protologism that appeared in a single powerpoint slide, has never been used again. Rulesdoc (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nom is correct. Nothing in Google Books or Scholar, 1 (non-WP) result in plain Google. Not a notable term. Jakew (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC) (edited 22:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Delete. An interesting topic, but also an obscure one. The term used here ("server side request forgery") appears to have been a one-off coinage by the SchmooCon presenter. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Server side request forgery is a new web vulnerability. The term SSRF was derived from XSRF. XSRF forges a client-side request where SSRF forges a server-side request. The term will be used in future scholarly articles and books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbalwb (talk • contribs)
 * When those scholarly articles and books have been written and published, we can restore this article (or write a new one based on the new information). Until then, though, the article is premature. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. SSRF should probably be deleted because it isn't published.  Do all encyclopedia entries need to be published?  Is that a requirement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbalwb (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, being able to WP:VERIFY facts in the article from WP:RELIABLE sources is a requirement. (As are things like having a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and no original research (WP:NOR) Wrs1864 (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I concure with the above and it appears that the author now says it should be deleted. Wrs1864 (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2008 (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.