Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle (router firmware)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. This appears to be the consensus for the current version DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gargoyle (router firmware)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Gargoyle Router Firmware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Gargoyle (router firmware) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted under name without parentheses, speedy as previously deleted declined. Has less/weaker sourcing now than when deleted before. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2012

  1. Deletion log
    • 08:24, 22 July 2011 Bigtimepeace (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Gargoyle Router Firmware (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware) (view/restore)
    • 17:54, 12 July 2011 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) restored page Gargoyle Router Firmware (73 revisions restored: Being relisted at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 12, per rough consensus to relist at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 1#Gargoyle Router Firmware)
    • 03:23, 1 July 2011 DMacks (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Gargoyle Router Firmware (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware) (view/restore)
  2. Contents at time of deletion
  3. Content when speedy (as previously deleted) declined
  • Delete- certainly falls under the spirit, if not the exact letter, of G4. I don't see any good reason for this to have been restored, and the nominator is right about the sourcing. Reyk YO! 10:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per the consensus of the most recent AFD in November 2011 which closed as Keep, this article now establishes notability by referencing a second detailed review in a reliable source (The Gadgeteer) along with a review in LWN. I am surprised to see the nominator implying that the sources in the June 2011 version were stronger, as when he was arguing for deletion of the previous version he described all but the LWN source as "I do not believe that this qualifies as a reliable source. There does not appear to be indepent editorial oversight. (That's another way of saying "it's just press release churn.)". Dcxf (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was that linked from the article talk page? (He says, without going to look.) Sorry if I missed it. I've added the box at the top, thanks for pointing it out. I don't understand the rest of what you said, I do apologise. Are you implying that LWN is non-standard coverage from a reliable source? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure what you mean by "non-standard", but the LWN article is significant coverage from a reliable source, as is the Gadgeteer article. The other previously-cited reason for deletion, that the article was originated by the software's designer, is also no longer applicable. Dcxf (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: the Linux Magazine and LWN.net are reliable sources with the sufficient depth of coverage. Not sure about Cybershark. G4 doesn't apply as the text is substantially different and most recent discussion was closed with keep result. Thus we have article meeting WP:NSOFT (and WP:GNG for bureaucrats) and no reasonable deletion rationale. P.S.: it would make sense to restore the version deleted via previous AfD in place of the current article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as already stated in the previous AfD, there's more/better independent sources than before. It's not self-promotion anymore. About notability, as noted in the first AfD, it has to be compared to similar products. And the TechSpot article describes it in a list of 4 popular products of that kind. The RedBurn (ϕ) 21:45, 22 March 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gargoyle_(router_firmware)&oldid=1069655355"