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 merge to Apple-Intel architecture. WjBscribe 02:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete Non-notable factlet. Not even worth being merged into another article. AlistairMcMillan 11:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete While in the grand scheme of things, the existence of a Mac OS X kernel extension to block non-Apple hardware from being used to run OS X might not seem significant, it has everything to do with virtualization and digital rights management, both of which are very important topics particularly of late. The article does cite references and is very informative, as well. Perhaps it could be merged with Mac OS X or even osx86? Mstahl 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We're not the hacker's guide to Mac OS X and this is way too technical. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-16 18:14Z

• Comment - mhm yah this is informatiional its not about hacking OS X —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.11.149.61 (talk • contribs) 04:27, April 18, 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Reading the notability wikipedia guideline, we can see that "Notability is generally permanent", which makes this article far from notable, since it is a response to the trend of running OSX on non-apple hardware. Dravick 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't believe this is the correct interpretation of permanence of notability - just because software evolves, does not mean it's not capable of being notable, otherwise we would be deleting all software entries once they are superseded. There are references Ohconfucius 02:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I wasn't clear. I just meant that it is not a notable subject; maybe there could be like a sentence in a "trivia" section in the apple intel transition page, but certainly not its own article. Dravick 00:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To an extent, I agree with points madde by Mstahl, although I am not convinced it should be a full "Keep". It is clearly relevant, and worthy of mention. No company has paid more attention to maintaining such a strong link between hardware and software. Merge possibily to Apple-Intel architecture or Apple-protected binaries Ohconfucius 02:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Apple-Intel architecture as Ohconfucius suggested; while not a notable module on its own, discussion of OS X's copy protection would be relevant to that article. Krimpet (talk/review) 04:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Apple-Intel architecture seems better than straight deletion. It is an interesting, relevant, and reference-able piece of information. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since multiple sources indicate this is an item of note. —204.42.16.113 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not an argument, since all sources could be from very technical websites, making it interesting only for programmers or so. Dravick 06:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (1) showing the user messages is copyvio (I assume) (2) not notable, does not meet the 10-year test. Herostratus 13:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles on wikipedia concern a topic less than ten years old, especially computer-related pages. Is that really a valid argument? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps Hero meant the "will the subject still be interesting to anyone in ten years?" test. AlistairMcMillan 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends on whether or not Apple decides to keep it in the code for ten more years. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:03, 22 April 2007 (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.