Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PfSense


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

PfSense

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Almost all the refs are own refs and the very few that are not don't confer any notability. The two that aren't own web-site are Free Software Magazine, and Tech Republic and both read as though they are spawned from press releases. Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 23:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. Furthermore your statement is vague and does not state a valid for page deletion. Majority of references referring to pfSense page are technical nature and the two you consider wrong are still valid. Please provide valid reasons. --Mnlth (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition to my previous message, most of references you consider wrong are actual history, product version and features which cannot be referenced anywhere other than to pfSense page. If you can find references about pfSense history and their product versions on some more reliable source, please let me know. --Mnlth (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

EDIT:

Here's a longer list of pages that are also referencing to their own sites, why are they not marked for deletion?


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmoothWall
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPNsense
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M0n0wall

--Mnlth (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The nominator does propose a valid reason for deletion, and that is that the subject fails to satisfy WP:GNG, the general notability guideline. If you disagree, the most effective way to counter the claim is to provide reliable, secondary sources that discuss this subject in detail. While self-published sources are generally okay for verification of information in appropriate circumstances, they contribute very little to establishing a subject's notability. Also, pointing out that other articles with similar issues exist does not prove that this particular article should exist—see WP:WHATABOUTX. —Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 01:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 01:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How to provide secondary sources for release notes? More importantly, how does that make information more valid? It simply makes no sense to provide references and secondary sources for the release notes from sources that have no connection with pfSense project. Furthermore, WP:GNG is satisfied because references to secondary sources are provided on subjects that required it. On subjects like release notes, references must go to official source of information and not secondary sources. --Mnlth (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. Significant coverage in secondary sources is needed to show that the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Of course you can use primary sources for verifying release notes. Mz7 (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Covered by Softpedia (if good enough for Department of Homeland Security, good enough for me), InfoWorld, NetworkWorld, ZDNet, SecurityWeek, Phoronix, Tech Republic; multiple books written on subject; Microsoft writes about configuring it for their products. Notability is not established by sources in article (WP:CIRC maybe applies?), but their mere existence elsewhere. Article could certainly use some cleanup, however. Maybe OP can search for external sources (appears to not have occurred prior to AfD...) and include those into article. A primary sources tag is warranted in head of article, but not deletion, as it clearly meets GNG. Namaste. -- dsprc   [talk]  18:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  17:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This really makes no sense. pfSense page is being considered for deletion because majority references point to release notes on pfsense project pages (their own refs). These refs are strictly release notes and it simply makes no logic or sense to reference any other secondary source for release notes. On the other subjects there are references on secondary sources, so WP:GNG] is satisfied and [[WP:GNG is satisfied because references to secondary sources are provided on subjects that required it.--Mnlth (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Velella: May i ask you what triggered you to mark this page for deletion? Because it is a bit odd that this happens "just" as there is dispute between opnsense and pfsense. Or differently asked. Are you affiliated to opnsense? GruensFroeschli (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Irrelevant to the current situation.

However i think a deletion is not justified. Maybe change the header to "this article has problems" instead of delete it. GruensFroeschli (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, there's no valid reason for deletion.--Mnlth (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Keep, this is a very notable BSD. Vitor  Mazuco  Talk! 17:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is backed up by plenty of unrelated news sources (InfoWorld, Network World, Security Week, TechRepublic and Free Software Magazine). -Lopifalko (talk)


 * It even made it onto Slashdot (with a 1.0 release at that). --  dsprc   [talk]  07:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is backed up by plenty of unrelated news sources - including a recommendation for why you should be using it s recently as 2014/DEC that does not appear to be directly related to a press release.

infoworld  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.207.193 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2015 (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.