Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winzapper


 * 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 no consensus to delete or merge. Please pursue any further merge proposals through the editorial route.  Daniel  01:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Winzapper

 * – (View AfD)

Contested WP:SPEEDY, nominating at the author's request. I can't find any WP:RS on Google that this software has been reviewed, and thus it is not notable by our standards. shoy 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its release was an important event in IT security, causing log manipulation via selective event deletion to change from being a theoretical risk to a practical one. Stayman Apple 02:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as plenty of third-party sources have been added since listing. Alba 03:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources 2 and 4 don't mention the product specifically at all. Source 3 seems like a press release, and thus is not an independent source. Source 5 seems like a blog, which does not meet our criteria as a reliable source, see WP:RS. shoy  11:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked around for some reports of Winzapper actually being used in computer intrusions (e.g. by searching for +arrested +Winzapper) but found nothing. There may not be enough information out there for the article to grow much more. If that turns out to be the case, I would not be opposed to merging it with Security Log. There is some pertinent information here that is not in the Security Log article. Stayman Apple 12:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Given arguments now in operation, I now vote for merge and redirect to Security log. Alba 21:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems notable and new sources have surfaced. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 23:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. There are no reliable secondary sources cited, and the concept that log files are vulnerable to those with high level access (authorized or not) is basic security knowledge in any operating system. That is why log files are inadmissible as evidence in court, unless the logs were hard-copy printed in real time as the events were logged, and then only the original printouts are admissible. Any user with root (or equivalent) permissions on a system can change anything. This seems like a simple promotional article. It may be just notable enough to be mentioned in Security Log, so a merge might be appropriate. - Crockspot 00:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think we should include the info about admissibility in court in the security log article. Do you have any other sources relating to that? Captain Zyrain 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. No reliable second sources? What about the Forensic Footprint article? http://forensics.8thdaytech.com/winzapper-forensic-foorprint What about the Microsoft Security White Paper? http://www.seifried.org/security/os/microsoft/windowsnt.html Captain Zyrain 12:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What about them? Frankly, they both look like blogs to me, which are generally not reliable sources. shoy  18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * shoy is correct, neither of those is a reliable secondary source. They are both self-published sources. - Crockspot 19:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, what about the Hacking Exposed ref (just added to article; http://books.google.com/books?id=UVchzZjT-jcC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=winzapper&source=web&ots=EnWURte1ct&sig=iCwKQHMmQqC1rMwMM6SODUZ0ZIc ). Also, Winzapper is mentioned in Certified Ethical Hacker courses (e.g. http://www.onlc.com/outline.asp?ccode=SCEH41ONLINE ). Plus it was covered in Sys Admin (just added to article; see http://www.samag.com/documents/s=9366/sam0104o/0104o.htm ) Captain Zyrain 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The last link does not even mention winzapper. There is no notability guideline for software that I can find, but all the other notability guidelines require that the subject be the subject of non-trivial publications. These are just mentions, and would seem to be trivial to me. If there was an article or two that Winzapper was the main subject of, in a reliable magazine or trade publication, that would help your case. But I am still not convinced that notability is established for a stand-alone article at this time. Sorry. - Crockspot 20:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad, I gave the wrong link before. I have corrected it. Captain Zyrain 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per above, specifically the fact that there are no secondary sources.   I agree there may be a few sentances that can be put into Security Log, but not much. - Rjd0060 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Refactor all non-overlapping information to Security log. Winzapper has significance as a proof-of-concept tool, plus it is still apparently "the only shrink-wrapped tool that you can use to selectively delete events from the Security log" (per http://www.ultimatewindowssecurity.com/ebookChapter2.html ) Captain Zyrain 12:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As noted in other AfD discussions, lack of reliable sources is indicative of notability issues. /Blaxthos 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. We have at least two sources that meet WP:RS, one a book in the Hacking Exposed series and the other an article in Sys Admin. But the info has already been refactored to Security Log anyway so it's kinda moot at this point. Captain Zyrain 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as free utility software is as about as notable as a paperclip. --Gavin Collins 15:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If that were true of free utility software as a whole, then GIMP and Pine (e-mail client) would be deletable as well. Captain Zyrain 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep in mind that Wikipedia does have an article about Paper clips. (So that's a poor rationale for deleting this article.) Rray 00:18, 2 October 2007 (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.