Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle (router firmware)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aaron Brenneman (talk | contribs) at 03:00, 17 March 2012 (Gargoyle (router firmware): Based upon what criteria are you deciding that it is notable? Where are the reliable sources that support your statement?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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]