Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damn Vulnerable Linux

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Security-focused operating system#Damn Vulnerable Linux. Community consensus (policy), and the discussion consensus here dictates that this article does not independently meet the criterion of notability. Therefore, its placement in Security-focused operating system is appropriate as the OS is entirely focused on discovering, exploiting and improving against security vulnerabilities. If anyone needs more content to place in that section they may use the article history. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn Vulnerable Linux[edit]

Damn Vulnerable Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Independent sources review: a couple of sentences in tech news website + inclusion in a catch-all Linux distro database. Not notable enough for Wikipedia in my opinion. There's also a more lengthy, but not really more meaty post here in Network World, but it's the "community" section of the site; basically just a blog entry. Additionally, I found that it has passing mentions in three security books, click "books" link above. (For comparison purposes, this is the list of distros from [1]: BackTrack, CAINE, Chaox, DEFT, FCCU Linux, Network Security Toolkit, Securix NSM; most of them are not notable by Wikipedia standards.) It was suggested on the talk page that mention at Security-focused operating system would more appropriate; it already has a section there. This stub is unwarranted. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Network World review is by a rather notable reviewer [2] not just some random person. They don't just let anyone publish whatever they want. So that certainly counts as a reliable source. HardOCP is a reliable source, and their news section mentions it, although not a lot to say about it. [3] A news writer and senior editor at Geek.com mentions what it is and gives his opinion about it. [4]. Dream Focus 23:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is not part of the NW staff. A CEO of a rather obscure consultancy writing a blog which has very little substance in most posts is more a form of self-advertisement and increasing his on-line profile than anything else. I'd hardly call that post a review. I haven't found a single sentence there indicating that he actually tried the product. He just reproduces the manufacturer's claims and then goes on a tangent about his own ideas about education and security. That's not a review in my book. [And as a tangent of my own, five long and substantive reviews were not enough to save Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateway LT3103U as a standalone article; product reviews don't count much on Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is totally unrelated. Two people say Gateways are notable, just not each individual product, one of them suggesting merging it with others. The nominator just said delete. You then showed it had ample coverage, providing without any possible doubt it met WP:GNG. I assume the article must not have had much in it. Anyway, just because three of the four random people who happened into the AFD said delete that article, doesn't mean anything. Its all just random luck sometimes. I feel empathy for your loss, how it stings us so to know we are so very right but still see the end result go so very wrong. Please don't let your bitterness of your loss, cause you to strike out at other articles you see as similar to your own, but instead remember the injustice, and choose instead to strive to prevent future injustices happen instead. Dream Focus 00:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do they let anyone create a blog? I think its only those who prove their merit. If there is editorial oversight then it counts as reliable source. That is written in a guideline or policy somewhere as I recall, since this came up before. Dream Focus 00:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have a question, although I'm sure its right in front of me and I'm just not seeing it, but do you have a link for the Network World article you've mentioned? - SudoGhost 00:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Its the one he mentioned in his nomination. [5] Dream Focus 01:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Facepalm Facepalm Yep, if it was a snake it'd have bit me. I'm going to wait until my sinus medicine stops making a fool of me before I comment further, but from what I'm seeing I think I'd have to say I'd recommend a weak keep for the article, but I'll look into it further first. - SudoGhost 01:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 23:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I looked through the references in this discussion and in the article, and while it isn't the most notable topic on Wikipedia, it does appear to have enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 18:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with four inline reliable source citations, this software article describes this Linux OS release with the useful but curious property of being very vulnerable to security attacts, and therefore a good learning tool for computer science students. Yes, I know that being useful is not a good ground for retaining an article, but this article is useful for someone needing this kind of software. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The references in the article are half to obviously project associated sites (one's the project itself, another's a hosting site I think...) and the others are blurbs on sites that do this for many many distros. None of those citations even begin to indicate notability. This seems like an open and shut delete based on what's here, if ARS hadn't gotten involved this would be a simple case. If someone can find some actual indications of notability I'll change my !vote. Shadowjams (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite assertions to the contrary, no reliable non-trivial secondary sources have been found which cover this subject. The present references are a) the project's home page, b) two WP:ROUTINE references to a new Linux distribution on news / enthusiast sites expected to cover such, and c) a tutorial. The PROD should not have been removed without asserting why this subject is notable, especially when the editor responsible has stated quite plainly above that his rationale for doing so is invalid. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references currently in the article aren't the only references; there are references above that aren't routine in any way and are "reliable non-trivial secondary sources". Your comment didn't seem to mention those, perhaps you missed them? - SudoGhost 15:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If new sources are found during an AfD they should be added to the article at the time, as the purpose of the project is to improve articles and not win debates. It is extremely rare in my experience for anyone to bother doing so after the fact, which is why so many borderline articles end up being brought back to AfD time and again. I'll have a look through the sources linked above. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; it does not, however, require that the coverage be found in the article, that's an issue of article improvement not notability. - SudoGhost 20:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm abundantly aware of that. But that doesn't change that the references are doing no good to the encyclopedia sitting in an AfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've now added both additional cites. This is still borderline IMO; both new sources cover release announcements and they're actually nearly identical in content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a teaching and research tool. That I can see it has one independent ref that doesn't cover it in all that much depth and in a niche outlet at that. This is not the "significant coverage" which the WP:GNG requires. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Damn_Vulnerable_Linux&oldid=1137758755"