Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacTheRipper


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

MacTheRipper

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable software, unverifiable article that lacks citations or cites unreliable sources like a a personal blog or a mailing list (and some of the sources do not mention the product at all). The product homepage does not exist anymore. No significant coverage in reputable sources, except for the PCWorld.com article, which mentions it rather marginally. J. M. (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: The software is popular, but popularity doesn't equal notability and I can't find significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: the pcworld source indicates notability. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 14:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think so. The notability guideline says:
 * 1) "1. 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail"": The PCWorld article does not describe MacTheRipper in detail. It is not much more than a trivial mention.
 * 2) "2. Multiple sources are generally expected": The PCWorld article is the only reliable source that could be found. It only confirms that MacTheRipper exists.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 *  Keep  - found 556,000+ hits on Google. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ message • changes) 03:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is irrelevant. The number of Google hits does not make a product notable. What you need is "significant coverage in reliable sources".&mdash;J. M. (talk)
 * In that case,  delete . ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ message • changes) 05:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Keep per Pcap. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ message • changes) 03:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Delete: Doesn't seem to be notabile. PaleAqua (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Updating to keep based on sources linked by Pcap below. PaleAqua (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Important. With a lot of work it can be quickly fixed. There should be an article about it because it is a notable piece of software. I will place some other cleanup tags on it that will show up on some IRC channels. (Mr. R00t)   Contact me  22:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, if somewhat weakly. It does have some coverage. Half a page in this book, similarly here, one page tutorial in Mac Life, included in a round-up in Macworld, etc. Pcap ping  22:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as Pcap says - marginally notable, but marginal is good enough in a case like this IMHO Thparkth (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2010 (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.