Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware

Gargoyle Router Firmware

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

Seems to lack significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. The article was written by the software's author. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, I'm not finding anything to satisfy the GNG either. ~~Qrsdogg (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Good job Widefox finding those sources, though I'm not 100% sure that they prove notability so I'm more neutral than keep now. In any case, if this is kept the article should be moved to Gargoyle (Firmware) or something like that. I only searched for the exact phrase "Gargoyle Router Firmware" so I guess that's why I missed those (or maybe I just suck at this). Qrsdogg (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with move suggestion. Widefox (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A quick search turned up multiple refs establishing notability. Article now has adequate references. WP:GNG satisfied. Notability established. Other problems (COI, slight advertisement style, and unsourced claims needing refs are all tagged.) Widefox (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific as to which references you found? FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Widefox Dcxf (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~see article for references. I tagged rescue, although it is already rescued IMHO Widefox (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]~~
Keep Cybershack and Linux Magazine are reliable sources. Dream Focus 00:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those articles are very short ~ 200 words each. (That's less than half of the length of this deletion discussion, if you're curious). They also have virtually no independent opinion on the product, basically just reproducing manufacturer's information. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of reliable third-party coverage beyond the computer-enthusiast community. And I wouldn't call a TV programme's associated blog a particularly reliable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would there need to be reliable third-party coverage beyond the computer-enthusiast community? Most things don't get coverage beyond their target audience, since not everyone is going to care about everything else. And if the television show is a reliable source, then so is their website's review of things. Do you agree Linux Magazine is a reliable source? Dream Focus 11:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because an encyclopaedia is not meant to be a repository of information "that may only interest a specific audience" (to use {{over detailed}}'s wording). Hence WP:GEOSCOPE in WP:EVENT, the requirement for "at least some of these works serving a general audience" in WP:NBOOK, etc. Enthusiast communities are notorious for talking about the minutiae of their interest in excessive detail, hence such coverage is generally not considered evidence of notability. Television shows, like all other media, are of uneven reliability and "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Weekly "information-type show"s tend to be of lower reliability than a news programme or documentary. And the blog-associated-with-a-weekly-"information-type show" tends to be lower again. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]