- 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. Sandstein 10:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Grsecurity
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Grsecurity ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
After removal of primary, affiliated and self-published sources, there's nothing left. I find no good evidence that this is a significant patch set, maybe it's become redundant to SELinux?. Guy ( help!) 18:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, it's not, but I don't mind the deletion. If of any relevance, my opinion is there (the comment of 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)). Vox Araneae ( talk) 17:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Software comes, software goes, but something has to make it notable to merit its own Wikipedia page. The only notable articles about Grsecurity are the articles that sprang up when Linus Torvalds called it a piece of garbage
[1]. Although that controversy made some waves, it was brief. It doesn't get a mention here and I don't think it establishes notability. -- Sirfurboy
(
talk) 19:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC) - Delete - There isn't sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources for it to clear WP:GNG. There's nothing showing that this is a notable software so this is just spam. RetiredDuke ( talk) 16:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep the legal disputes are notable. 2A01:4C8:1E:E173:B4A9:8966:AA18:82CF ( talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- I was expecting this to be mentioned, and disagree that it is a reason to keep. There is a legal dispute, which is indeed somewhat notable, regarding the license under which this software was released, which was deemed not compliant with GPL2. The expression of that opinion led to an anti-defamation lawsuit that was thrown out and then that led to an assessment for payment of legal costs by Open Source Security, Inc. under anti SLAPPsuit legislation. Yes, all that is somewhat notable, but it is not notable for this article, because this article is about the software (and anyway, makes no mention of the suit). The suit does not make the software notable. It might perhaps make the company notable. The Grsecurity suit would also be notable for a brief mention in an article on the GPL or on SLAPP suits. What it does not do, is it does not establish that the software itself is notable for an article. -- Sirfurboy
(
talk) 21:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- I was expecting this to be mentioned, and disagree that it is a reason to keep. There is a legal dispute, which is indeed somewhat notable, regarding the license under which this software was released, which was deemed not compliant with GPL2. The expression of that opinion led to an anti-defamation lawsuit that was thrown out and then that led to an assessment for payment of legal costs by Open Source Security, Inc. under anti SLAPPsuit legislation. Yes, all that is somewhat notable, but it is not notable for this article, because this article is about the software (and anyway, makes no mention of the suit). The suit does not make the software notable. It might perhaps make the company notable. The Grsecurity suit would also be notable for a brief mention in an article on the GPL or on SLAPP suits. What it does not do, is it does not establish that the software itself is notable for an article. -- Sirfurboy
- 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.
- 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. Sandstein 10:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Grsecurity
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Grsecurity ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
After removal of primary, affiliated and self-published sources, there's nothing left. I find no good evidence that this is a significant patch set, maybe it's become redundant to SELinux?. Guy ( help!) 18:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, it's not, but I don't mind the deletion. If of any relevance, my opinion is there (the comment of 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)). Vox Araneae ( talk) 17:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Software comes, software goes, but something has to make it notable to merit its own Wikipedia page. The only notable articles about Grsecurity are the articles that sprang up when Linus Torvalds called it a piece of garbage
[1]. Although that controversy made some waves, it was brief. It doesn't get a mention here and I don't think it establishes notability. -- Sirfurboy
(
talk) 19:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - There isn't sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources for it to clear WP:GNG. There's nothing showing that this is a notable software so this is just spam. RetiredDuke ( talk) 16:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep the legal disputes are notable. 2A01:4C8:1E:E173:B4A9:8966:AA18:82CF ( talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- I was expecting this to be mentioned, and disagree that it is a reason to keep. There is a legal dispute, which is indeed somewhat notable, regarding the license under which this software was released, which was deemed not compliant with GPL2. The expression of that opinion led to an anti-defamation lawsuit that was thrown out and then that led to an assessment for payment of legal costs by Open Source Security, Inc. under anti SLAPPsuit legislation. Yes, all that is somewhat notable, but it is not notable for this article, because this article is about the software (and anyway, makes no mention of the suit). The suit does not make the software notable. It might perhaps make the company notable. The Grsecurity suit would also be notable for a brief mention in an article on the GPL or on SLAPP suits. What it does not do, is it does not establish that the software itself is notable for an article. -- Sirfurboy
(
talk) 21:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- I was expecting this to be mentioned, and disagree that it is a reason to keep. There is a legal dispute, which is indeed somewhat notable, regarding the license under which this software was released, which was deemed not compliant with GPL2. The expression of that opinion led to an anti-defamation lawsuit that was thrown out and then that led to an assessment for payment of legal costs by Open Source Security, Inc. under anti SLAPPsuit legislation. Yes, all that is somewhat notable, but it is not notable for this article, because this article is about the software (and anyway, makes no mention of the suit). The suit does not make the software notable. It might perhaps make the company notable. The Grsecurity suit would also be notable for a brief mention in an article on the GPL or on SLAPP suits. What it does not do, is it does not establish that the software itself is notable for an article. -- Sirfurboy
- 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.