Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware


 * 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. What had, at DRV, been deemed a problematic prior close by Aaron Brenneman functioned better as a deletion rationale. All AfDs need to be based more on strength of argument than numbers, but perhaps this one even more so. There is a rough split between keeps and deletes here, but some of the keep !votes are quite problematic ("Notability established," "agree with editor x," etc.). On the delete side, Aaron Brenneman and to a lesser extent SW provide detailed arguments for the view that there are real problems with the available sources, which are already pretty minimal. Several other editors found these arguments persuasive, while only a couple really responded to them negatively. Hobit, who discussed this with Aaron, continued to support keeping but conceded that we had just "one very solid source," meaning the question of "multiple" reliable sources was at least somewhat fuzzy even for that editor. DGG offers perhaps the best keep rationale, but what it boils down to is a particular, and not necessarily invalid, interpretation of what constitutes "significant coverage" when it comes to these kind of products. If more people were explicitly making a point like DGGs things might be different, but instead what I'm seeing is not a policy-based consensus for that view but rather one for the arguments laid out by several in the delete camp, namely that the sources we have are neither reliable enough nor numerous enough to rise to the level required by policy. Note that the only choice here in closing was between deletion or no consensus--there was clearly not a consensus to keep. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Gargoyle Router Firmware

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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


 * Delete Per nom, I'm not finding anything to satisfy the GNG either. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Agree with move suggestion. Widefox (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Could you be more specific as to which references you found? FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Widefox Dcxf (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * see article for references. I tagged rescue, although it is already rescued IMHO Widefox (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Cybershack and Linux Magazine are reliable sources.  D r e a m Focus  00:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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?   D r e a m Focus  11:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Every article only interest a specific audience. Do you think most people enjoy reading history, or articles about various species of plants?  It gets coverage, and nothing gained by destroying it.  Do you have any proof that a television show wouldn't bother checking facts?  I find that unlikely if its tech related since their target audience would the ones smart enough to notice any mistakes and call them out on it.   D r e a m Focus  01:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note, the nonsense in WP:BOOKS about a general audience has been removed by consensus on the talk page. So you can't cite it anymore.   D r e a m Focus  01:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You cited WP:GEOSCOPE which is about local news coverage, and thus nothing to do with this. Its not a small town making a big deal about a potato festivals.  "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable."   D r e a m Focus  01:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I made it VERY CLEAR that I was citing WP:GEOSCOPE as an EXAMPLE OF A GENERAL PRINCIPLE! Such misrepresentation, as well as being an all-too-typical violation of WP:TALK, is the sort of thing that gives me a deep and abiding regard for yourself and your fellow ARS regulars. If I may be permitted to present a very-slightly-edited version of Pascal.Tesson's argument in Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)/Archive 2, it may elucidate my argument:


 * Given the existence of over detailed, it is reasonable to suppose that the focus of Wikipedia is not on information "that target[s] a very very restricted audience." Therefore it is reasonable to avoid whole articles that target such an audience. Therefore it is reasonable to seek evidence that a topic has a potential readership beyond such an audience. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Your example of a general principle is ridiculous. Unrelated thing as I have said.  And you insult the ARS regulars, and yet you are one yourself, showing up at most articles tagged for Rescue and finding a reason to say delete.   D r e a m Focus  11:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again we have the logical contortionism. I gave two EXAMPLES that were EXPLICITLY from different areas of notability guidelines, I did not state nor did I imply that either was directly applicable here. As you are wll aware, I am not a member (nor would I want to be) of the ARS. I am merely an editor in good standing who attempts to correct the systemic imbalance that CAT:ARS creates in AfD debates. If you don't like your misconduct being tied to the ARS, then tough. Each time an ARS member comes on an ARS-flagged AfD and misrepresents other editors' comments, the article under discussion, or the extent, applicability or reliability of the the sources, they are bringing the ARS into further disrepute. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources quoted are not "extremely specialized ones that target a very very restricted audience" so I don't see how the books example is applicable, directly or otherwise. It's not a circle of a few dozen mathematicians, it's many thousands of open-source enthusiasts. The over detailed template seems to be speaking to trivia and lists within an article rather than the notability of an article's subject, and suggests moving or fixing said content rather than deleting it, so I don't see how that applies either. Such a minor template surely doesn't override the GNG. Dcxf (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * [The following was posted [by Aaron Brenneman and restored] by Hrafn 2011-07-12T18:25:31]. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC) -- Misattribution corrected. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete


 * The nomination claims this does not meet the General notability guideline, itself a subsection of the Notability guideline. Both of these are guidelines that support and are subordinate to the verification policy.


 * Since this article does have sources, the debate here is "Do these sources rise to the level intended by the policy?"


 * The sources themselves:
 * "Gargoyles to keep a watch over your PC". Cybershack. 21 Jan 2011. Retrieved June 16, 2011.
 * 195 words, no attribution (that's very important) in the "news" section of an on-line outlet for the very minor television show Cybershack. Even brief perusal of the other "news" items shows them to be :press releases in all but name.
 * The relevant place to look here, than, would be V
 * 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.)
 * Kristian Kissling (17 Jul 2009). "Gargoyle: Web Interface for Router Configuration". Linux Magazine. Retrieved June 16, 2011.
 * 210 words, mostly identical to above, also in the "news" section...
 * All as per above.
 * Koen Vervloesem (22 Dec 2010). "Gargoyle: completely open source and easy to use". LWN.net. Retrieved June 16, 2011
 * This is an actual article about the product, huzzah! But is this a reliable source?  This is, is it "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?"
 * From the home page "What is LWN.net? LWN.net is a reader-supported news site dedicated to producing the best coverage from within the Linux and free software development communities. See the LWN FAQ for more information, and please consider subscribing to gain full access and support our activities."
 * I'll skip to the end, and spare you the other diggin' I've done: This does appear to be a reliable source with respect to reliability and third party, but it must be admitted that this is a niche publication and thus does not have a "reputation."
 * That third one is most important if the facts are disputed, but here we're really just discussing scope, which is what the crux of this is about, so I'll defer that until we finish on...
 * Eric Bishop. "Gargoyle FAQ". gargoyle-router.com. Retrieved 21 June 2011
 * Not a "reliable source" as we mean it on Wikipedia as opposed to what the words actually mean. "Why so?" you may ask.
 * Per the lead contributor is "Eric Bishop (gargoyle-router.com): Project founder, lead developer of Gargoyle."  So not "third-party."


 * This now means that no matter if it is decided that LWN is reliable, it doesn't have multiple reliable sources.


 * With respect to the quality of the debate that has occurred here, I'd strongly suggest that people work much harder at understanding and applying policies.
 * There is no source that gets the blanket approval that was applied to Cybershack and Linux Magazine.
 * Even the most cursory glance at these references should have shown they were not appropriate.
 * The initial authoritative statements by Dream Focus and Widefox lack anything falsifiable. Please don't make bald claims like "Notability established," give reasons for these claims.  This opens the floor to calm collegial debate.
 * Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Relisting comment: Deletion discussion reopened and relisted after rough consensus to do so at Deletion review/Log/2011 July 1; please do not close for another 7 days following this timestamp.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 17:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete Fails the GNG due to lack of reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the topic, as analyzed by the editor above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I find the LWN.net and Linux Magazine articles to be RSes. The second is not great, but it does seem to meet WP:N. I also don't buy the "specialized sources aren't acceptable" line.  I see nothing in policy or guidelines to make me think such a view has consensus and I'm certainly very strongly opposed to such a thing. Hobit (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, looks like a reliable source with short but non-trivial coverage). Hobit (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Hobit, that almost nothing gets a blanket "it's a reliable source," editorial judgement is required on each piece. (Argh. At one stage we had an excellent guide on reliable sources that covered "churn" articles like this one, but I cannot find it now.) Anything that appears in the bite-sized sections on an on-line magazine (be that section called "tips" or "news" or the ilk) is a de-facto press release.  TechSpot has nine staff.  Nine.  Anyone who has worked in publishing (and I realise I'm committing "argument by authority" here) knows that you're desperate for content.  All the time, the voracious masses demand more content that they haven't seen before, and this is made even worse by twitter and rss feeds.  To feed the beast you produce large volume/low demand articles like this one, which in addition to being easy to write are impossible to get wrong: You quote the specs, sprinkle some opinion,  you're done.  Here's the whole bit on Gargoyle "Gargoyle was originally available as a third web interface for OpenWRT but it's now being released as a full firmware image for routers such as the Linksys WRT54G series and the Fonera. Among its features are dynamic DNS, quality of service, access restrictions, bandwidth quota management, bandwidth monitoring tools, and an AJAX-based GUI. Gargoyle's developer says the firmware's primary focus is to provide a polished interface for advanced features that is at least as easy to configure as any existing firmware. A list of compatible devices is available here -- it supports a bunch of Broadcom and Atheros based routers -- and installation instructions can be found on this page."  It's not even unusual to send a quick one-line email "Hey, we're thinking of featuring you..." and get the person to write the text themselves.  (Is that what happened here? Who knows.) The long and the short of it is that we simply cannot base an article on pieces like this.  And there are tens on thousands of pieces like this.  It's also part of why Software notability ended up rejected and why Notability (software) is only an essay. I'd suggest that all editors spend some time on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard to gain a deeper understanding of the issues involved.  I was unable to locate any discussion of techspot specifially there, but the discussion where it's mentioned is a good example of how hard we have to think about these sorts of things. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "Here's the whole bit on Gargoyle", that's taken out of context. The whole article is not a de-facto press release, it's a survey of popular router firmware, and Gargoyle's inclusion in this survey speaks directly to its notability. Also the mention of Techspot in RSN that you linked to is referring to a download listing where the text in question is clearly headed "Publisher's Description" and is not editorial content. Dcxf (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In a word, "no". A "reliable source" can refer to the creator, the publisher, or the article itself.  Do you seriously have qualms about the reliability of any of those three in this context?  The only thing I'm seeing is that you have a theory that the article was effectively ghostwritten and someone else's byline put on it.  That's a pretty serious charge and could even be viewed as a BLP violation.  I'd suggest you consider striking it if you can't provide evidence other than your own theories.  Now, assuming you have no real objection to the publisher or the author and can't identify anything about this article that makes it not a reliable source (and I've seen nothing sof far), we are left with the question of if this coverage is significant.  I'm perfectly willing to accept that others might not see the coverage in two of those articles to be significant.  One is quite short and one only provides material on this topic as part of a wider review.  But I personally think both are significant (and I'd hope you'd grant it's not clear cut either way, so we are left with opinions).  In summary, I think you need to drop the "not a RS" line and move on to if the coverage is significant.  You have an arguable case there (though I disagree), but your RS case is not only weak, it's built solely on your own speculation of plagiarism, something I find unacceptable in this context. Hobit (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. That's, err, quite an impassioned response.  First please for the love of toast don't throw out "BLP violation" when there is no relationship between what I said and the policy on living people.  Biographies and the BLP policies are serious business. Anyway, below (in my response to Unscintillating) I've provided some links to show that the text is so short and the information so sparse that phrases picked from any regurgitated article looks very much alike.  Also I'd suggest that you do some reading on this before you fire off accusation of accusation of plagiarism, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.  Wire sources frequently don't require continuity of attribution, and press releases fall into the "sweat of the brow" area of copyright in that they are supposedly just information and thus again no attribution is required.  (Or desired, usually.)  While this is a slight diversion from this article,
 * This is a discussion by a guy who used to write press releases that makes no bones about repackaging and reselling.
 * Anything that deals with "proliferation of errors" is usually deeply informative. It's a common term in information theory, and it only took me a few moments to find this article that deals with the problem.
 * This is a how-to on writing "reporter friendly" press releases.
 * This one is "funny at first" where they out-and-out offer money for running the press release. It becomes less funny when you see the comment by Guy Clapperton, an honest-to-goodness-if-small-time journalist says "the business model isn't unproven elsewhere."
 * Here is one that not only talks about how inaccuracies get in, but almost mirrors my language above about filling the content hole, "tight budgets and ambitious amounts of air time to fill" indeed.
 * I'm not sure what else I can do for you on this matter, since all the world's information cannot be reduced to a sound bite and linked from a diff. But seriously, find someone you trust who knows about publishing and ask them.  This high-volume churn is business model 101 for online magazines.  Read around a little bit and it's trivially easy to verify that this is the case.  It's also trivially easy to demonstrate, just pick a phrase from the article and google it to see how many times and in various forms it appears: "dynamic DNS, quality of service, access restrictions".  Some of these are techspot itself being recycled, but if you're not getting the picture now I'm not doing a very good job of painting it.  This is not to suggest that there is anything illegal or underhanded about any of this, it's just how things are done.  These little bites of words are not "reliable" since they don't have normal vetting standards applied. If you really insist, I'll find more links to papers that discuss this, but even a cursory search on your own should satisfy you, really. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was a bit too vehement, and for that I apologize. However you _do_ seem to be claiming that this author copied something without attribution.  You have now (with the Google search) built a decent, though not great, case for the claim.  Without that I do think you were making an unfounded claim of plagiarism, and yes even though this page isn't a BLP, it is still a BLP issue and I'd urge you to be careful with making such claims without evidence.  If you insist, we can take it to BLP/N and see what others think.  In any case, back to the topic at hand. I think we have one very solid source and a couple of acceptable, though weaker, sources. I still think this meets WP:N.  Hobit (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was overboiled in my response as well, and was going to tone it down a bit, but you responded first. (-_-) After all that, I think we agree that there is only one solid source. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The bold part of my summary at the recent DRV began revert closing.  It appears that an editor described above as "showing up at most articles tagged for Rescue and finding a reason to say delete", has seen fit to superimpose a personal interpretation on the DRV discussion and turn what I opined be reverted into an unattributed delete !vote here at this AfD.  I have restored attribution to the comment and marked it as a "textquote".  I also note that I analyzed point 2 of the AfD closing comments on July 9, finding that it was not coherent analysis, and note that this analysis went unchallenged through the end of the DRV three days later.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The DRV contained multiple recommendations to "Demote closing statement to a delete recommendation" or similar, so I see no reason to censor Aaron Brenneman's comments. I would like to thank Unscintillating for their irrelevant ad hominem attack. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't take silence as consent with respect to your comments at the deletion review: Your primary analysis was that item number two in a list has "no clear antecedent." There is also the oddity of your suggestion that the closing administrator should have emailed Linux Magazine? Regardless of these, if you had performed the search that you yourself suggested, you'd have found that were two thousand five hundred and ninety results for "at least as easy to configure as any existing firmware." and "Gargoyle." (Choose the "show omitted" option so that you can see the similarities.) Aside from the fact that this fails the spirit of the General notability guide, it also makes it quite hard to write an article that is not in itself another press release. Take the lead sentence, google it and remove wikipedia: Gargoyle "interface for small, widely available routers" -wikipedia. Note that the first result is the Gargoyle FAQ, and then it's content farms as far as the eye can see.  From this narrow and incestuous base it is simply not possible to build an article that complies with our core content policy of being unbiased. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hardly surprising that the article's author would use the description of the software from the FAQ. Also your description of the Linux Magazine article as "mostly identical" to the Cybershack article is incorrect, apart from the single-line summary they are quite different. Dcxf (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I have no idea what that tinypic is showing since I can't see it, but just reading the text will show that they are almost identical: "Cybershack: Gargoyle is a firmware interface for most small and widely used routers such as the Linksys WRT54G series, the La Fonera and other Linux-based routers that is designed to provide functionality above and beyond what the default software provides. This includes such things as dynamic DNS, quality of service, and bandwidth monitoring tools. LinuxWeb: Gargoyle is a router interface for devices of the Linksys WRT54G series and other small routers such as the La Fonera. [...] It provides functions not usually found in router firmware, such as smart DynDNS support, QoS and used bandwidth monitoring."There is a tiny infobite here ("be sure ahead of time that your device supports OpenWrt") or a bit of purple prose there ("miles of Ethernet cables"), but these pieces are effectively identical.  Pay particular attention to that list item at the end.  Ask yourself what are the chances that two truly independently written articles would have the words "provide function[s]/[ality] such [things] as dyn[amic] DNS, q[uality] o[f] s[ervice], and [used] bandwidth monitoring" in the exact same order? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I didn't see this before, the Gargolye FAQ: "So, what is this 'Gargoyle' Project all about? Gargoyle is an interface for small, widely available routers such as the Linksys WRT54G series. It provides functionality and customizability above and beyond what the default software provides including sophisticated quality of service and bandwidth monitoring tools."So can we please now stop with the pretense that these are actual articles, written by actual journalists? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So they are "mostly identical", apart from all the differences? For example the Linux Magazine piece reports on the improved features in the version 1.0 release, and gives some guidance on downloading and installation, all of which is absent from the Cybershack piece. As I said it's unremarkable that such a short piece about the software would draw from the description of the software from the FAQ, and probably from the software release announcement as well. It's clearly more than just a reprinted press release, it's non-trivial coverage from a publication that meets the reliable sources guidelines, written by an author who found the software notable enough to report on. Dcxf (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said in my reply somewhere above that got lost in the miles of odd debates, there's next to nothing can be construed as independent opinion/coverage in those two pieces. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Exactly the type of articles that make an encyclopedia. DeVerm (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Uhhhhh...--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * yep :-) Look, I'm completely uninvolved with this article and a retired network engineer so knowledgeable with the subject. I don't say it's ready for GAN, there's many things wrong with this article... but deleting it is not what is needed. The article in it's current form is better than no article and I'm sure many who are looking for info on the subject will appreciate finding it even in it's current form. It is notable and I find dismissing Linux Journal as source and counting words of references really not helpful. DeVerm (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
 * I'm already ridiculously over-involved in this discussion, so why stop now... I hope that "dismissing Linux Journal [magazine?] as a source" was just unfortunate paraphrasing, rather than me failing to communicate clearly. "Reliable source" is a term of art, and things that are obviously "reliable" in the normal sense may not be in the Wikipedia sense. It's painfully clear to me that all bar one of the sources provided are churn, that they are not "significant" coverage.  (I'd have hoped that pointing out in exacting detail the near-identical wording in the other sources would have made that an inescapable conclusion.)  If you'd like to engage in the substantive debate or provide better sources, that would be great.  But barring that you've given a "vote" of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions variety, both "I like it" and "it's useful," as well as an statement that "it's notable" unsupported except by appeal to authority.  (I'm aware that I sound like a pompous arse when I type, and I struggle against it.  In person I'm animated and my eyes crinkle when I talk, so the same words come out quite different.  Have mercy on my limitations, please.) Software guidelines have tried to be written that expanded upon the underlying general notability guideline but they have failed to gain consensus, Software notability is "failed" and Notability (software) is just an essay.  In order to avoid each and every AfD from turning into a free-for-all, we create over-arching rules for what gets in and what doesn't... and despite all the noise and haste, multiple reliable sources for this article have not been found.  *shrug* I really should go find something else to do... Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aaron, with TechSpot added, there are now 4 references. Take a breath, move on. This articles passes WP:GNG regardless of how many people are employed by the publishers of those sources. The references are there, the valid Keep votes are there, I'm not even gonna add that Russian source from GNews, life goes on. DeVerm (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete for not meeting GNG (per Hrafn's and Aaron Brenneman's arguements above). Look, it's obvious that the product's creator (User:Ericpaulbishop, product's creator is Eric Bishop) copied and pasted portions of his website into a Wikipedia article on his product.  This is clearly an attempt at promotion.  Gargoyle's website says this:
 * "Gargoyle is an interface for small, widely available routers such as the Linksys WRT54G series. It provides functionality and customizability above and beyond what the default software provides including sophisticated quality of service and bandwidth monitoring tools. The primary goal of Gargoyle is to provide a polished interface for these advanced tools that is at least as easy to configure as any existing firmware... Gargoyle is based on the most recent Kamikaze release of the OpenWrt firmware."
 * and our article says this:
 * "Gargoyle is an interface for small, widely available routers such as the Linksys WRT54G series and the Fonera. It provides extra functionality compared with the default software including dynamic DNS, quality of service, access restrictions, bandwidth quota management and bandwidth monitoring tools. The software's developer, Eric Bishop, says its primary goal is to 'provide a polished user interface for these advanced tools that is at least as easy to configure as any existing firmware'. Gargoyle is based on top of the most recent Kamikaze release of the OpenWrt firmware."
 * The product's creator has smartly licensed his website under CC3.0 so we can't call it a copyvio, but it's still obvious promotion of a non-notable product. The sources provided are largely not reliable and do not pass the GNG bar.  &mdash;SW&mdash; confess 21:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the excellent analysis provided by Aaron Brenneman and SW. causa sui (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not seeing a great deal in the way of independent analytical comment in the sources. Much of the content has been inspired by, if not actually taken from, the creator's website and releases. This firmware has the potential for notability but has yet to make its mark. Does not, at present, meet WP:GNG. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There is only a requirement that the coverage be as extensive as customary for notable products of this sort, and I think it's been met. Nobody expects a special purpose software to have extensive article written about it, ; the requirement is just significant coverage. There is no requirement for the coverage to be "analytical"' -- 90% of the sources for Wikipedia  articles are merely descriptive, which is sufficient for our purposes.  Indeed, extensive analysis of the value of the sources in cases like this defeats the purpose of GNG--which is to include things the relevant portion of the world thinks important.  Important of its kind.  This is not extreme niche software that will sell only a few dozen copies--and even those can be notable if they're the leading products. The deletion arguments amount to IVENEVERHEARDOFIT.     DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 22 July 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.