Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firewalk (computing)

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. Proposed sources remain uncontested. Sandstein 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firewalk (computing)[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)

notability tagged for ten years fgnievinski (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it passes GNG. Here's an extremely in-depth explainer that at least looks independent, which seems to have been written entirely about the method, and cites several more descriptions of it. More in-depth and independent-seeming articles in what look like reliable sources, including textbook mentions, are easy enough to find: see for example 1, 2, 3, 4. I even found questions about it as sample questions on IT exams and course answer websites, see here and here, which suggests that it's part of some standard network security curricula. This is further supported by the existence of plenty of tutorials devoted to explaining it, such as here and here. So I don't think there's any trouble putting together a GNG argument. But I'll also admit that computer security jargon is just opaque enough (to me at least) that I'm not completely confident these are all about the same thing, so I would welcome double-checking that all these sources apply. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first three links are about the pentest software tool documented in the article while the fourth is a coincidentally named NSA exploit. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! Consider the link about the NSA exploit metaphorically struck out. :) - Astrophobe (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first link provided by Astrophobe is a solid source for establishing notability. I found two other network security books that discuss the tool via Google Books without much difficulty: first by one of the authors of the tool Building Open Source Network Security Tools: Components and Techniques and second Principles of Information Security, which is in its 6th edition. The GNG criterion seems to be comfortably met. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:01, 12 January 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.