Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DenyHosts


 * 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. Tone 14:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

DenyHosts

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is a notability claim here and a single reference. I think this is too weak to sustain this article. Miami33139 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep I find lots of discussion on blogs and fora by apparently technically competent people, the kind of widespread discussion that while no one link indicates notability, en masse tends to (but perhaps not by Wikipedia rules). I found one university page on this software, and several pages from commercial firms that might be considered reliable sources, and appear to be independent. I have added these to the external links section. There ought to be a way to source this kind of widely used open-source software that will not be much written about in traditional published secondary sources. DES (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in light of Pcap's additions. DES (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I had deprodded this article and added the O'Reilly book ref before the AfD; true it's only a 3-page coverage, but what can you expect for software like this? Perhaps merge all of them (e.g. together with Fail2ban) in some overview article, perhaps intrusion prevention system? Pcap ping  01:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, Fail2ban has zero gbooks hits. It's all sourced from HowtoForge and the like; there's no shortage of that kind of articles for DenyHosts either freesoftwaremagazine.com, ubuntugeek.com, howtoforge, but being covered in a book coverage seemed more significant. Pcap ping  01:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also played a central role in this elreg story. Pcap ping  01:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think notability has been established after adding this. Pcap ping  02:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly: even though this sort of thing is too much with us, this seems to be the subject of genuinely independent commentary. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2009 (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.