Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disk Firewall


 * 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 delete lacks reliable sources, notability not proven, fails WP:CORP.  Ѕandahl  00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Disk Firewall

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Proprietary technology used in single product (advertisement); notability improbable given Google results for "Disk Firewall". Lea (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the fact that the article should be removed, while I agree that it should be improved.


 * If we get to the bottom of this, it is not a proprietary technology, it is a "file system filter driver". The problem is that this won't ring any bells to a reader who is not a kernel mode programmer and has no clue what a "filter driver" means. I think references to the relevant articles about drivers should be added.
 * When it was first launched, there were no similar filters in other programs, so I don't see a problem with "Disk Firewall" being used as a name (at least at that time).
 * Perhaps it should be renamed to "File system filter" or "File system firewall" (this being a generic name, while "Disk Firewall" is the name given to one of the implementations of such a mechanism). The drawback is that there are many other ways in which a filter driver can alter the behaviour of a file system, so "Disk Firewall" is a mechanism which deserves a spot of its own (because it clearly states how this filter is different from other filters, by using network firewalls as an analogy).
 * There are other examples of technologies that have a dedicated entry; ex: Starforce, while in reality it is 'just' another flavour of DRM.
 * At the time of this discussion, there are already several programs that provide such a feature.
 * The technology is going to become more popular in the future, the idea is that such a mechanism makes antiviruses redundant, so it is of reason to assume that the security conscious will migrate towards such an approach. Gr8dude (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Without contesting any of your individual arguments: Do you have external sources to back up the notability claim? There are a lot of new developments in computer security and kernel development; most of them are not notable.  For instance, has the technology been talked about in independent reliable sources, and can you provide references for the technology's usage in "several programs" without resorting to OR? -- Lea (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is one reference in the article itself (another vendor, calling their mechanism the same way), and here are some alternative stories about this: The Decline of AntiVirus and the Rise of Whitelisting, Symantec and McAfee should stop crying about Vista, Application Control - Whitelists for Controlling Malware; look for 'whitelist'. They are discussing the concept of the mechanism, but not the way it is implemented in the system, which is why in neither case you will see 'disk firewall', or any references to kernel mode programming (with the exception of the article on ZDNet).Gr8dude (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that this whitelisting can equivalently be called "Disk Firewall" is WP:original research. -- Lea (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I give up. I guess it is more appropriate to extend the Whitelisting article if necessary, since it also contains sections to various uses of whitelists.Gr8dude (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. Question to the experts (closing admin?): Is there a (standard) way to allow for more time for merging and delete then? -- Lea (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sources provided by Gr8dude are blogs. Blogs are not reliable sources, and do not establish notability. I'd oppose merging the content as well; if a product is non-notable, it generally shouldn't be mentioned anywhere. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, stealth spam that seems to be trying to sidestep vanity/promotion issues by claiming broader usage. --Dhartung | Talk 00:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom; article about a tech product that lacks any reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2008 (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.