English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Gargoyle Router Firmware

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

This article was created again. I found it while patrolling. It's not my area of expertise, but, I'm doing this out of good faith based on the prior deletion so folks can review it. Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I created this page. I am using Gargoyle FW since this is the only one which allows capping users bandwidth per IP address. No other firmwares allow that. Antidos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC).

Comment. Just because you like it and you believe it does things others don't have doesn't automatically give it notability or warrant re-adding it. You have to show independent and reliable sources (blogs rarely count as reliable sources) to prove notability and prove that this is the only firmware that does these things. It's easy for the creator's website and any adverts to say these things, but you have to show proof of notability. I'm not going to vote because I know squat diddly about this stuff, but I just wanted to put in a comment so you can back up your claims more. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Keep. There's now a second full article with independent opinion on The Gadgeteer. Plus the (Wikipedia) article doesn't look like a marketing tool anymore. The RedBurn (ϕ) 12:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I have strong reasons for keeping. 1. 1.1 I believe the references were strong enough before 1st deletion (1 RS) 1.2 and are now even stronger (2 RS) 2. the original AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware had fatal flaws - 2.1 was closed too quickly and in a partisan aggressive style, then re-listed and 2.2 incorrectly closed as delete instead of the correct no-consensus IMHO. 2.3 Delete was justified by discounting +ve opinions on the reliability of the Linux website source 3. not all of us are here all the time, so having missed the re-list, now is my chance to correct my omission from the flawed re-listing 4. As the editor who added to the article by finding the references, I felt very uncomfortable about the deletion discussion and being attacked for confidence on the reliability of sources. That was my opinion. 5. I must say that all that effort put into the deletion process kind of puts people off genuinely giving time here. 6. I believe the topic to be growing in importance (just my personal opinion) Widefox (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. A reasonably well established firmware. The current article does not read like an advert like the one on wayback machine. The Gadgeteer and LWN.net seem like good sources (but I am sure some dedicated wikipedian could pick them apart if they wanted to). --Cybjit (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2011 (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.