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. The "keep" arguments are not made in terms of the requirements of applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially WP:N, and are therefore discounted. Sandstein 10:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pspboot[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was PROD'ed, and later undeleted after the article's creator contested the PROD. The article still fails to meet WP:N. Rilak (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary source coverage. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete I am not sure what you mean by "No secondary source coverage". But this is a worthwhile article documenting a bootloader used on millions of consumer ADSL routers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbaca75 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being widely used does not satisfy WP:N. Rilak (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and keep the redirect: significant subject. –SJ + 19:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this bootloader is a "significant topic", then where are the references? I don't see any relevant ones in the article, I don't see any in Google Web, Books, News, or Scholar, and I don't see anyone opposing deletion producing any. Rilak (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't have to look very far: http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK338&=&q=Pspboot+bootloader&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbaca75 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of the first ten results are sources that can demonstrate notability, per WP:N, and none of them are reliable sources per WP:RS Rilak (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references on article are only pointers to the components, not demonstrations of notability for Pspboot. Hasteur (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like the one on Adam2, this is an article documenting a bootloader used on millions of consumer ADSL modem/routers based on the Texas Instruments/Infineon AR7 chipset. The fact that current coverage is scattered all over the place is further proof of the need for a definitive and authoritative article (which, by the way, is already being cited). How long did it take for Wikipedia itself (or Linux, or anything else) to achieve notability (according to this restrictive construction of that term)? These extremely narrow constructions will kill anything before it even gets a chance to breathe. I completely dispute the narrowness of these constructions, and I do not agree that they correspond with the intended meaning of "notability". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbaca75 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So notability still can't be demonstrated? Rilak (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can, and it has. Just because it doesn't suit your interpretation does not mean that it has not been demonstrated. I have quoted the definition in the debate about Adam2, and I am not going to repeat it here. I think the definition is quite straightforward and needs no further comment. Your construction is extremely narrow, and it is wrong. Frankly, I think that nothing is being achieved by this debate. Someone with the correct authority should make a decision, and let's move on. Chewbaca75 (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My interpretation on WP:N is the norm. To put it simply, if a topic has no significant coverage in reliable sources, then it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. If I'm wrong, I would appreciate it if an experienced editor would tell me otherwise, not an editor who believes notability is demonstrated by listing mirrors of the same article that's up for deletion. Now, you claim notability has been demonstrated and that it can. I've said it before, but apparently its not getting through, so I'll say it again: where are the references? You can't even provide one! Rilak (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/techref/bootloader/pspboot Chewbaca75 (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant. Documentation does not demonstrate notability. How about something from a reputable book, or an article published in a reputable magazine or newspaper, or a peer-reviewed paper? Rilak (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion of irrelevance - and it is not gospel truth. According to that narrow personal construction, half of wikipedia articles will fail the notability test. That itself shows that your construction is flawed and too narrow. I have said enough. I sign out of this pointless debate Chewbaca75 (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- About time. I've wondered why you bother with this AfD if you can't provide evidence of notability. Rilak (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.