Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MikroTik (3rd nomination)


 * 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 keep. And as an aside, I'd like to compliment for the vastly improved layout of their comment. Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

MikroTik
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per the last AFD, still fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. It's still lacking in the required sources and I see absolutely no change from the last AFD a year ago. Praxidicae (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How can the article be exactly the same or have absolutely no change if it contains information about vulnerability found in 2018 while the article was deleted in 2017? That makes no sense. It is also worth mentioning that since the article deletion in 2017 the company got bigger and more notable. The number of employees literally doubled: from 140 workers in 2017 to 280 today. The New York Times mentioned MikroTik among 3 others most significant network equipment manufacturers vulnerable to the specific software vulnerability. Cisco Talos Intelligence Group did include MikroTik's network equipment into their vulnerabilities research. Sergeal (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete; this should be a G4 as it is substantially the same as the version that was deleted at the last AfD., you declined the G4 because it was different from the 2008 deleted version, but did you check it against the 2017 version that was restored to Draft:MikroTik? It's clearly exactly the same. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In the same edit summary where I stated it was different from 2008 version I also state I could not find the 2017 one ("I can not fin the 20177" has two typos, sorry for that, but it is still readable I guess). The deletion logs showed the 2008 version but not the fate of the 2017 one, which I now see was moved without a redirect to Draft:. I searched and looked at two user drafts by RasputinAXP and Vikasbswami both different, though none seemed to be the 2017 version looking at the dates. Yes, I forgot to look at Draft:. What if I did?. I am not sure, but I would probably do nothing. It is not the same, but it also has no large change, I would likely let it go to be assessed by the next admin looking at it.- Nabla (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How can the article be exactly the same or have absolutely no change if it contains information about vulnerability found in 2018 while the article was deleted in 2017? That makes no sense. It is also worth mentioning that since the article deletion in 2017 the company got bigger and more notable. The number of employees literally doubled: from 140 workers in 2017 to 280 today. The New York Times mentioned MikroTik among 3 others most significant network equipment manufacturers vulnerable to the specific software vulnerability. Cisco Talos Intelligence Group did include MikroTik's network equipment into their vulnerabilities research. Sergeal (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See passing mention. Praxidicae (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My message contained several arguments, and only one is addressed so far. Additionally this article exists in ~21 other languages with a very similar content. Even while the requirements for the articles in other languages may differ, the amount of existing articles dedicated to the MikroTik indirectly indicates the notability of the subject. Sergeal (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you like to provide actual independent reliable sources or keep going in circles? Praxidicae (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Even though these are not reliable source, the article exists in 22 other Wikipedias, in very diverse languages, including large Wikipedias with high quality standards. I checked history of some and they have been created at different times by different users, and have existed for years. The content between them is sometimes simmilar, but there are other variations as well. It seems to be result of good faith translations of various users over time, who apparently thought this is significant enought to be worth the effort. According to edit summaries, the article here also was translated from Russian, that's why it is similar to 2017 version. This is the opposite of what you'd see, if it was a minor company trying to promote itself Xil (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --  Dane talk  22:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep — No it does not fail corpdepth, entire books, which count as significant coverage, have been written about the company's products. Kbrose (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone can write a book now. How does the book you're referring to meet IRS? Praxidicae (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Praxidicae, please consider that "Anyone can write a book now" is quite dismissive and not in keeping with our purpose of conducting an objective assessment. It's quite evident there is considerable coverage of MikroTik in the media&mdash;not just mere passing mention in the context of some other subject; moreover, it is a partner in key technology initiatives with nationwide impact in its primary country of operations. Both these considerations speak to the article more than meeting WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. I hope you reconsider your position. 21:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep — seems a significant tech product in the news cycle for security vulnerabilities Hornpipe2 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide sources? Praxidicae (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The references are already listed in the article...? Hornpipe2 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant references which would show notability. None of those are in the article. Praxidicae (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm - I'm very familiar with MikroTik. The company is similar to Ubiquiti. I'm not sure that the article establishes notability in it's current state - tho I do believe that the company is likely notable. SQL Query me!  02:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't speedy. In case you haven't seen, G4 is for reposts, not expanded pages.  Passing mentions are still additional content: if they have new content, they're not reposts.  Don't game the system by trying to get pages deleted when they patently don't qualify: I see that you've done this lots of times, and if you keep it up, a block is coming.  I've not looked at the article, so no opinion about anything else.  Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't get why it was closed with 'delete' last time - as I allready said then it's a large company on national level, it was clearly demonstrated that there are sources supporting this. Yet when all is said and done three people appear out of nowhere on the same day and say that there are no independent sources, despite the opposite having been demonstrated, and that's enough to get the article deleted. Also arguments were strange - a promotional ("fancruft") article that not only is neutral in tone, but also lists things that would reflect negatively on the company? There are multiple articles on the company in different national level media, yet those are not proof enough, because someone can refer to an essay that actually just points out that search engine hits are not enough? And now the argument appears to be that the article hasn't been edited enough since then... I've seen worse articles kept with way less reason, I am usually not into conspiracies, but it seems borderline suspicious. Xil (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Re suspicious: To see the hypocracy of this trolling, all you have to do is look at the flimsical articles written, or supported, and proudly announced, by the OP of this attempt. Some have barely a paragraph. Kbrose (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I added information to the article about this company being large on national level, source is one of the national newspapers, the article also has a photograph showing company receiving award from government minister as 'best exporter' at an event where largest taxpayers in the country were awarded. Xil (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Even a cursory search returns nearly 300 entries on the DIENA newspaper site (one of the major Latvian newspapers), including the company's involvement in accelerating 5G roll-out with LMT, the first and largest mobile provider in Latvia. The company certainly meets WP:CORPDEPTH for article inclusion. There was no reason to delete last time. And if "it hasn't been edited recently" were a real criterion, countless articles would be deleted. There's controversy as well, when their servers installed in Brazil were hacked in 2018 (reported in anglo-centric media, since that appears to be a tacit requirement). It is precisely this sort of we-don't-care-about-it treatment of significant entities in small countries (that is, therefore insignificant) that keeps editors away from contributing to WP. The motion to delete this article is entirely arbitrary. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Google News shows plenty of RS referring to Mikrotik. Especially in the light of the recent exploits, keeping this page would help users better secure their routers. Dandv  23:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow MikroTik to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)</li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kbrose, Hornpipe2, <b style="color: #FFBA13">Xil</b>, Cunard. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 11:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep especially considering Cunard's finds. — Rutebega ( talk ) 02:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.