Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American fuzzy lop (fuzzer)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

American fuzzy lop (fuzzer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One paper doesn't make this program pass WP:GNG. I couldn't find any other non-blog secondary sources. shoy (reactions) 20:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as non notable prgram/software, Fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - the program already improved the Free Software world significantly by affecting about 100 projects and leading to hundreds of bugfixes. At the moment there are 378 people subscribed to the "afl-users mailing list" and contains hundreds of posts. This means that this project made a big impact and has a healthy and active userbase. Also, I added some more references. Deetah (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I added more references that point to serious security bugs and proofs that those were found with the aid of afl-fuzz. Those bugs were found in FLOSS programs used by millions of people and if they were not found and reported, somebody else could find them in a different way and instead of leading to fixing them, those could be weaponized. I believe that afl-fuzz greatly contributed to the current state of information security. Deetah (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please try to expand the article beyond its current state of a very short stub. That might help, as it would demonstrate that the provided references contain enough relevant material. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 15:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that the article would be removed tomorrow if the voting goes against it - could I get more time for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deetah (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, no discussions of this type are closed by bots, people instead read them and conclude the outcomes. Thus, if you're asking for more time, there are no reasons not to have it. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 20:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You may also use this Black Hat presentation (see page 44) as a rather good reference, which also brings the notability up one notch. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 13:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I included this in the article. Deetah (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, great. Your next steps should be to add more content/wording to the article, and to convert already existing external links into references. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 14:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: relisting per author's request for additional time to improve the article S warm   ♠  06:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Quite frankly, at the moment it fails to satisfy the notability requirements. I'd suggest that we add american fuzzy lop somewhere into the Fuzz testing article as an example, and revisit its status some time later.  It's highly possible that it will become notable enough in the next few months, but that unfortunately isn't the case right now. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: After a more detailed insight into the features, use and impact of the american fuzzy lop so far, I've changed my opinion. The article should be kept, and its current form is rather good. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 05:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to another article on a larger topic, such as Fuzz testing. There may be merit to keeping the history so it will be there if and when this topic meets WP:GNG.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S warm   ♠  06:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I added more references, including more serious CVE bugs, a Black Hat presentation and French infosec-related magazine and underlined the size of the community. Also, I expanded the article beyond its stubby version and added a screenshot. Deetah (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC) You only get to !vote once shoy (reactions) 12:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thought that after relisting I should cast my vote again. Deetah (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Idea is to be encyclopedic and not social media, where censorship is more rampant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debasish Dey (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article has been significantly improved since this discussion was opened. Dozens of official security announcements (maybe more) by widely used projects (i.e. millions of users, or billions in the case of some like sqlite - which has integrated support for it the testing harness) with credit given to AFL for finding the vulnerabilities is a strong indication of notability. The information is certainly verifiable. At a minimum it's covered by an infosec magazine and lwn.net, which is a very reliable publication with strong editorial oversight rather than a tech blog. There are multiple academic papers analysing it or making use of it. 99.231.115.244 (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Current references seem rather specialized, and the text is really reaching a bit in places (census of the mailing list...?), but I would judge there's a borderline notability demonstration. Wouldn't say no to a merge with Fuzz testing though. -- Elmidae (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * actually, the post was there just to connect the CVEs to the author. On the other hand, the CVE pages already reference afl-fuzz in links inside the report, so perhaps this particular reference can just be removed. Deetah (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the nature of references, we can expect only highly specialized ones simply because that's the nature of american fuzzy lop itself. It should be a while before it's covered in more popular media, but that shouldn't affect the fact that it's already notable enough to deserve a separate article. &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 23:00, 1 September 2015 (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.