Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomato (firmware)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Redirect to WRT54G. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:58Z

[edit] Tomato (firmware)

Tomato (firmware) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Previously speedied, recreated. Router firmware, don't see the connection with WP:SOFTWARE. Deizio talk 18:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It was previously speedied because the editor mistakenly thought it was a self-promotion for a commercial software venture; it is a notable open source software project. Router firmware for the WRT54G has been notable due to the popularity of the router and the large user community[1], with many of the other firmware projects already on Wikipedia as noted on the Talk:Tomato (firmware) discussion. This particular project has attracted attention in the WRT54G community[2], and a quick Google of "tomato firmware" received 12,100 hits. Mr. Zarniwoop 04:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • With respect, I fail to see how your comment addresses the WP:SOFTWARE guideline. "Attention in the WRT54G community" does not translate to establishing notability, and neither source above seems to fit WP:RS. There are 108 unique google results, fairly unspectacular. [3] Maybe it's just firmware? Deizio talk 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • But according to WP:RS, attention in the WRT54G community does correspond to notability, unless I'm misunderstanding this sentence: "The number of users has been considered for some time a criterion for notability". You also get many more Google hits by searching for tomato wrt54g [4] which accounts for the fact that the software is not normally referred to as "tomato firmware". Cheesey 11:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't understand what your interpretation of that sentence is. Deizio talk 12:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My interpretation of that sentence is that software can be considered notable simply by having a large number of users. Cheesey 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The guideline refers to that as "controversial" and "not feasible", not as an indicator of notability. Deizio talk 18:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, or, possibly, redirect. I was the original CSD nominator, and I still stand by that decision. The fact that this is is an open-source project and not a conventional company does not in any way mitigate the need for reliable sources and independant verification, none of which this article has ever demonstrated. There are a whole lot of these articles, by the way, a list of which is conveniently located at Talk:Tomato (firmware). Whatever happens here should happen to most of them. Depending on whether or not the content at WRT54G#Third-party firmware projects meets inclusion guidelines, these articles could be redirected there; I don't think there is more than a one-line blurb that Wikipedia can dedicate to these projects with the current level of referencing. Serpent's Choice 00:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that whatever happens to this article should also happen to all the other WRT54G firmware articles - if one such article is not suited to Wikipedia, then none of the others are either. Maybe it would be worth adding an AfD message to the other articles on that list to encourage further discussion. Cheesey 11:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you guys know more about firmware than me, I just spotted an article which failed several policies and guidelines. If this is deleted I suspect you could use it as precedent to delete similar articles if they do not meet the relevant criteria. Deizio talk 12:58, 28 December 2006 (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.