Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyCwmp


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

EasyCwmp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not see evidence of notability. This has been previous nominated for deletion at AfD when it was in draft space--the deletion discussion for the draft version, which still exists, was moved to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mkallel/Easycwmp. The only reason it was kept at the earlier AfD was that the wrong process was used.  DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - confirm I procedurally closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Mkallel/Easycwmp when this was a userspace draft to encourage discussion at MFD instead. That discussion was started, as above, but the article was then moved into main-space necessitating this discussion. Despite multiple unsuccessful AFC submissions and what seems to be an attempt to make other editors play whack-a-mole with unsourced promo-spam, the creator has been unwilling to discuss the article at any venue. I questioned the editor who declined the AFC submissions and then nominated the draft for deletion, for which I now apologise. This has zero reliable sources - I can't see any way this would pass WP:GNG. Given the background, suggest we delete the article and salt the title. Stalwart 111  23:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I was unable to find any independent reliable sources; there is some discussion of the software in the OpenWrt forums, but this material is not considered reliable. Without independent in-depth RS, this article cannot be verified and thus fails notability per WP:GNG. --Mark viking (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * UnDelete EasyCwmp is new open source and it's a fork of the freecwmp project (as indicated in the EasyCwmp's article). freecwmp is an openwrt package. So this could be a reliable source. in addition, before consider this article not a reliable source, please check theses references :


 * EasyCwmp web site      : http://www.easycwmp.org
 * firm contributions     : http://www.pivasoftware.com
 * Easycwmp source project : http://www.freecwmp.org
 * stackoverflow forum tag : http://stackoverflow.com/tags/easycwmp/info

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkallel (talk • contribs) 09:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * clarification1 why consider this article as not reliable source ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anis ell (talk• 09:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to understand what people here mean when they say "source" (see reliable source). "Open" source and "reliable" source are not the same thing - they aren't even in reference to the same type of thing. We need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The company's own websites are not "independent reliable sources". Stalwart 111  13:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * clarification2 the question is not about the means of "Open" source and "reliable" source, but is about the reason of consider this article not a reliable source !!


 * UnDelete @Stalwart111 : how can I avoid the delete of this topic ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.250.29 (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You could start by not using multiple accounts to make it look like this has more support than it does. Mostly you need to demonstrate that this has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That means coverage in newspapers, industry magazines and other reliable sources. Simply posting links to the product's site won't help your cause. And you only get to !vote once. Stalwart 111  10:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the multiple accounts issue. But in fact we are only 2 peoples woking on this article "Mkallel" and "Anis ell" (The easycwmp project maintainers). Both we are involved in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkallel (talk • contribs) 13:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Concerning the reliable sources. Does the definition of the easycwmp in the stackoverflow tags is not sufficient?. And also our project is a fork from the freecwmp project and frrecwmp is already a package in the OpenWRT. I think that could be a reliable source, isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkallel (talk • contribs) 13:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. These don't count as reliable sources, as people already tried to explain to you. Max Semenik (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, no notability demonstrated. Good thing !== notable thing. Max Semenik (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2014 (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.