Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arpwatch (2nd nomination)


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Arpwatch
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although this topic has some "How to's" written about it, It is not WP:NOTABLE as a "how to" dosn't really provide notability. No articles are written about it or its history. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although I might be incorrect, this article does seems to satisfy the third criterion of WP:NSOFTWARE. For instance, look at the results I found on Google Books and Google Scholar. I would also advise you to look at the previous AfD for this article, in which pointed out multiple significant references in printed third-party books. -- Biblio  worm  20:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would contest that all mentions are either ancient (2005 is ancient in networking), or little more than passing mentions, but I am certainly willing to accept other points of view. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any requirement that the source be recent. Also, some of the "passing mentions" in those books and articles do in fact appear to be rather significant. -- Biblio worm  02:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no requirements for anything on Wikipedia. My point is if a colleague came to me for help on networking stuff I would almost certainly not direct them to a book from 2005 because its very likely to mention programs and techniques that are not at all in use, and that person would spend a lot of effort trying something that is just stupid. If we can't find any significant sources in the past ~5 years (and I would disagree with your assertion that those sources are significant) this article should be deleted or merged into the arp article. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So...let's suppose that I wrote an article on a very ancient operating system, such as Windows 1. (The article already exists, but this is merely a thought experiment.) If most thorough sources available are from many years ago, we should delete or merge the article, right? My point is that the age of sources should have no bearing on whether or not we keep or delete the article. By simply having an article on a particular piece of software, we are not implying that it widely used as of now. The software may very well be out of date. Under your reasoning, we should progressively delete software articles as they become outdated, which would mean that in ten or twenty years the article on Windows 7 might be gone. Also, I re-assert that some of the mentions in those books are significant, since a few of them have entire sections devoted to ARPwatch. Also, based on my Google Scholar results, it appears that there are some articles which are completely dedicated to it. -- Biblio worm  15:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I concur with 's original analysis in Articles for deletion/Arpwatch that Linux Firewalls, Third Edition (Suehring & Ziegler, Novell Press 2006 ), Wireless Hacks (Flickenger & Weeks, O'Reilly, 2005 ), and Real World Linux Security (Toxen, Prentice Hall, 2003 ) taken together amply demonstrate notability. A partial list of other books and research papers covering the subject includes:, , , , , and  (large).


 * The arguments that how-to's can't prove notability, that their coverage is old, or that arpwatch would not be the tool of choice today hold no water. 1) A Wikipedia article should not be written like a how-to, but there's no reason a how-to can't be a reliable, independent, secondary source, or contain significant coverage, which is what is required for notability. 2) Notability is not temporary. 3) The purpose of an encyclopedia is not simply to document current best practices. I wouldn't suggest bloodletting for a patient, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it - see WP:DEFUNCTS. If the content of the article is dated or doesn't give enough information on some aspect of the tool, that is a problem to be solved through editing, not deletion. Worldbruce (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Worldbruce and Biblioworm. The first AfD correctly states that third-party printings and books exist for this article to meet WP:NSOFTWARE.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   10:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the same as above and the earlier AfD discussion. It's the standard tool for the purpose of monitoring ARP changes when there is network trouble, not only for spoofing detection. --HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 22:41, 15 July 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.