Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FireHOL

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. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FireHOL

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: GNG. FireHOL maintains a dataset of malicious IPs which a couple studies use, but this article is about a firewall configuration tool that doesn't have any significant coverage. For this reason, I think the article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. Google books and google scholar seems to have a number of books and journals on cyber security, network forensics, ransomware, etc. discussing FireHOL. I confess it is too technical for me to evaluate the sources, but I do think the volume of coverage suggests this is a notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for voting. I'm not sure if you read the AfD rationale, but there is some literature about a dataset that an organization called "The FireHOL Project" maintains. Those sources will appear in searches but aren't actually about the subject, a configuration tool that (confusingly) is also named FireHOL. (If this doesn't make any sense to you, consider that it's very common for organizations to release products whose names are identical to that of the organization creating them. For example, people commonly refer to "Google Search" as just "Google".) I understand that you don't feel comfortable evaluating the sources you found, but this is why we don't keep or delete articles based on how many WP: GOOGLEHITS they return. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. That’s why I said maybe. What I don’t want to see is a soft deletion. We need some editors who can tackle the subject matter competently to participate given the potential pool of sources out there.4meter4 (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I figured that someone was going to dePROD this if I went through the proposed deletion procedure anyway for the reasons you're describing. Thanks for your input. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the IP dataset is notable Andre🚐 03:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should we do then? Are you suggesting we rewrite the entire article to be able to the dataset instead of the configuration tool? HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.