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 delete. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RouterTech

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

Procedural nomination. The creator of the article was not notified of the previous AfD and asked on my talk page for it to be restored. Since that AfD got only two "delete" !votes other than the nominator, I have restored it per WP:NOQUORUM and am relisting it to allow further debate. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
95.172.226.99 has no edits except to this discussion
Forum postings are not deemed reliable sources for establishing notability per WP:RS. They are not considered to be "published" in the same sense a magazine article is, or a book, or a scholarly paper. Forum postings are deemed unreliable because it has not gone under editorial and/or peer review; and it cannot be known with any certainty that the author is who he or she claims to be. Additionally, WP:SPS applies here too. Rilak (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The RouterTech team have a published article in the hackin9 magazine (link about half way down the page) 95.172.226.99 (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article ("Choosing a Router for Home Broadband Connection") is indeed published in a magazine with editorial review. However, as you say, it is written by the RouterTech team, which fails the "independent of the subject" clause in the notability guideline. WP:GNG says: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. (For reference, this clause is the forth one down.) Rilak (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I have a few questions for you. RouterTech is third party firmware is it not? "Third party" implies that RouterTech does not ship with every AR7-based modem/router out there, does it not? So while I have researched the AR7, and have found reliable sources stating that the AR7 is a technological achievement and is numerous, your claim that RouterTech, by the mere virtue of being written for the AR7 and therefore must be as numerous as it is, escapes my efforts to verify. It could be argued that RouterTech is notable if it is numerous. But you have not presented any evidence that it is, only assertions. So, I ask you, where are the reliable sources that can verify this claim?
Secondly, regarding the interpretation of notability. You are only reading part of the guideline. WP:N also states that independent coverage also has to be in reliable sources. None of the sites you listed are reliable sources — the first is a personal blog, the second is a personal website, and the third is in Italian (which I cannot read) but appears to be the website of a Linux distribution (and you have not even shown that two these sites have coverage of RouterTech).
A simple search for "RouterTech AND firmware" does not demonstrate RouterTech's notability. The following are the first ten results I see. The first four results are from RouterTech's website. So this fails the "independent from the originator" criteria. The fifth is from a forum. So this fails the "coverage in reliable sources" criteria. The sixth result is a blog, also fails the above criteria unless that blog is itself deemed reputable by reliable sources or is under editorial scrutiny of by the virtue of being hosted by a reliable source such as The New York Times (which it is not). The seventh and eighth result results are personal websites, which are irrelevant for the same reason as the forum and blog. The ninth result is a file sharing site, which is not coverage. And tenth result is a blog. I think that it is obvious why it is not relevant. So, I ask, where are the sources? Saying that sources are out there, and just have to be found, is a weak argument when I, the nominator, and others, have not found them, and when you cannot or refuse to provide any.
Thirdly, I think you are arguing against non-arguments. Who dismissed coverage of RouterTech in technical publications as irrelevant? If you presented a survey of firmware published in a reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and the survey includes non-trivial coverage of RouterTech, I think no one will dismiss it. That said, you have not even presented any evidence of notability, so who can dismiss something you have not yet provided? Who said that coverage of RouterTech must be in books and that other forms of publication is irrelevant? If it is a form of publication that is a reliable source, then it is relevant. Lastly, I do not think that Smerdis said the article should be deleted because another topic has the same name as RouterTech. I believe that Smerdis was clarifying that several Google News results are not about RouterTech the firmware for the benefit of AfD participants. Rilak (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* The fallacy of your arguments lies in your peremptory dismissal of so-called "personal" web sites. By your definition, if something is published on my personal website, then it is not "reliable". But if I publish it in a book (electronic or paper) then everything changes. Most books are written by just one person, and many are self-published. So what makes a "book" more "reliable" than a "personal web site" or "personal blog"? Nothing. This is a book: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UQZkbwAACAAJ&dq - is it more "reliable" than web sites or forums? "Published" does not mean Google books or any other that you've mentioned. "Published" means that something is widely available for anyone to read. You seem to have convinced yourself that your argument is valid by the simple expedient of dismissing any evidence that I produce as "irrelevant", on the basis of your view of what counts and what does not count. Well, I disagree most profoundly. Your argument is fatally flawed.
* And for the other sites which you claim to not contain anything about RouterTech, I will just give you a couple or so of full links: http://www.pcwintech.com/wireless-setup-routertech-v28-routertech-firmware, http://www.pcwintech.com/wireless-setup-routertech-v28-routertech-firmware, http://it.bongolinux.com/how-to-installare-firmware-routertech-25-su-roper-roadsl2p-wg/14164/. Given your previous history of dismissing online coverage as "irrelevant", you can hardly blame me for not bothering to post here things that could easily be obtained from a very simple Google search. And presumably, coverage in non-English language sites (such as PC Magazine's Greek forum: http://e-pcmag.gr/search/node/routertech and hundreds of Italian, Russian, Ukrainian, German, Chinese, etc., sites) also are "irrelevant"? There are literally thousands of coverage in what you would dismiss, so there is no point even mentionting them.
* In terms of installed base, you seem to want to ignore the obvious fact of the proliferation of the firmware, so much so that it hosted on all sorts of places. Any discussion of AR7 routers and AR7 firmwares anywhere cannot escape discussion of RouterTech. If that is not evidence of notability, then that is your opinion. You also ignore the fact of its being officially adopted by at least one major router manufacturer. That is entirely your prerogative. The sheer number of "blogs" and articles on "personal web sites" and "forums" (and in every tongue and language under the sun) should itself tell you something. Trivial and unimportant projects do not get such coverage. The real waste of time is this discussion. It should never have been triggered. Go and find trivial projects to delete. Chewbaca75 (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to answer a few of the points you raise. Wikipedia does not regard personal web sites as reliable sources. If you wish to get that changed you can try raising the issue, but you will probably have an uphill struggle. In the meanwhile, this discussion will be decided on the basis of existing Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and arguing against them here is unlikely to carry any weight. Contrary to what you seem to think, as far as I can see nobody has suggested that not being in English makes a source "irrelevant". The same applies to "...previous history of dismissing online coverage as irrelevant":I see no evidence that anyone has done so. Unreliable sources have been described as "irrelevant", but nobody has suggested that this applies to all sources which are online. As for "There are literally thousands of coverage in what you would dismiss, so there is no point even mentionting them", such an argument is no use at all. If there are reliable sources then give a few examples. Simply saying that there are some but you are not going to tell us where they are will not be likely to persuade the closing administrator that they exist. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
82.24.174.9 has few edits, and none within the last six months except in this discussion.
No one is picking on RouterTech. Articles must prove that their topics are notable in order to remain on Wikipedia. Finding articles that do not meet WP:N is one of the many things an editor does.
Regarding obsolete projects — notability is not temporary, that is, a now defunct project that had plenty of coverage in reliable sources is not a candidate for deletion just because it is defunct. Regarding the size of projects — the standard for inclusion is notability, not quantitative or qualitative aspects of a topic. If a reliable source (or many) has noted that a topic is large, then there might be a case for notability, but size itself does not determine whether an article is kept or deleted.
Finally, your HyperWRT example is not the best comparison. I searched for "HyperWRT" on Google Books, News, and Scholar. Ignoring irrelevant results (coverage in sources that are not reliable) I count six mentions in book results (for example) that could establish the notability of HyperWRT. In news results, I see coverage in a magazine that says HyperWRT is better than the vendor-supplied firmware.
Does RouterTech have any similar coverage? I did not find any after a reasonable search, which I am obliged to do per WP:BEFORE. This means that anyone claiming that RouterTech is notable and its article should be kept needs to prove so by presenting reliable sources here. Rilak (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit HyperWRT was notable is the widest meaning of the term because it was only a patch on the Linksys GPL source-code retaining the original look and feel of the original, and the later HyperWRT Thibor versions were very stable so it was an easy introduction for many into the world of 3rd party firmware - however you wouldn't know that from reading the wikipedia entry (which I recognize as being taken almost verbatim from Carl's old HyperWRT Thibor website). I haven't read any of the so-called scholarly articles, but if relevant they should be linked on the HyperWRT page of course... But HyperWRT it was nothing on the scale of OpenWRT, dd-wrt or even RouterTech, all of which are still in active development with global reach! Unusual for 3rd party firmware its use was adopted and loaded by default by a UK distributor http://www.solwise.co.uk/adsl-sar600er.htm (dd-wrt now has link with Buffalo, Fon use OpenWRT), this has been reported in magazines, in printed media not immediately obvious on-line... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.163.47 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view regarding the relative size and importance of RouterTech to other third-party firmware projects such as HyperWRT, but Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is centered around how much coverage a topic has received in reliable secondary sources, not the merits of a topic or its merits relative to other similar topics. You say there is coverage of RouterTech in magazines. If you could provide bibliographic information of the coverage here, that would be really helpful in determining notability. It does not have to be a formal citation. At the very least, the title of the article or magazine is needed since the coverage can usually be located using any one or both these pointers. Rilak (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what new excuses will arise thereafter? - that someone does not care to read every paper to find the references, or that it is written in another language which is difficult to evaluate (ref the last entry in the Adam2 discussion), or some new excuse, which again moves the goalpost? And, I see that there is no response to my replies to the points made above. Chewbaca75 (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The following two comments are copied over from the original deletion discussion, since it seems that a procedural relisting should not prevent the original commentators from having their views considered.
Explain how the messages I left on Ihcoyc's talk page skews the outcome of this AfD. No explanation? Just an insinuation that it does? Well, that's pretty the substance of it. If RouterTech is indeed notable, then the mere provision of sources evidencing notability is sufficient to prove that all arguments for non-notability are wrong, even if the arguments for non-notability were the result of unsavory behavior. After all, collusion cannot hide sources from showing up on Google or prevent editors from presenting evidence of notability. Or, in other words, non-trivial and independent coverage of a topic (AKA notability) exists independently of whatever organized attempts there are to claim otherwise. Rilak (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What can we see above? We can see that some people equate a rephrased version of an argument which attempts to explain why the outcome of this AfD is not altered even if there was collusion with an actual admission of guilt. (In case it's not clear enough, the keyword is IF). That said, who wants to bet that the next round of selective quoting and taking things out of context will revolve around someone admitting guilt? Rilak (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2011 (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.
More