Talk:MikroTik

Product vulnerabilities from five years ago

I'm not sure how this is relevant. When I look up a multitude of other tech companies on Wikipedia, I do not see a list of their current CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures). Some companies have controversies, but that is different than active CVEs. Considering these were five years ago and have been long patched, I don't really think they belong here. Gtwy (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because this is a translation of the Wikipedia article from Russian into English language. The page about MikroTik exists in ~21 languages except English. The company is notable and well known in IT environment and letting basically the same article to exist in many languages but English is absurd. --Sergeal (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It's existence on another language isn't relevant, all projects have different criteria and I don't see any changes from the last AFD in terms of sources that would indicate it's notability. Praxidicae (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that there are fundamentally different project requirements for the same article in German, French, Italian and other languages. Yet they exist just fine. It is preposterous that the same article for Russian speaking audience meets all the necessary criteria but does not meet requirements for the English speaking audience. It is also worth mentioning that the article overcame first removal nomination in 2008 but was deleted after the second nomination on 2017. It demonstrates that the situation with this page is ambiguous and requires further investigation before making the final decision Sergeal (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Non notability is an *absurd* claim. Its one of the biggest names in Router tech. They literally have their own operating system. There is shop down the road from me that *only* sells their products, I am in australia. What an embarassing debate. Duckmonster (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to tell you because we routinely delete stuff as not notable despite it's existence on other projects and italian Wikipedia does the same, and in fact has much different notability requirements. Since the last AFD, 1 year ago, what's changed? Where are the sources? Praxidicae (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Since the last AFD 1 year ago, the company became bigger and more notable. The number of employees literally doubled: from 140 workers in 2017 Wiki archive 16/04/2017 to 280 today Mikrotik - About us However, the extra sources on the page are indeed insufficient at the moment. Possibly adding company's financial results with relevant links may prove the importance and significance of the company in terms of Wikipedia requirements? Sergeal (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

employee counts are not notable themselves but 140 is definitely not significant. And them reporting their financials isn't either. Praxidicae (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. So after the last AFD, on May 27, 2018 New York Times mentioned MikroTik among other 3 companies as a manufacturer whose devices are vulnerable to a malware. I believe that means that MikroTik is recognized as one of the most significant network equipment manufacturers that is worth mentioning in NYT. Does it rise the MikroTik significance? Sergeal (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

To be more specific, NYT says, that “[…] among the affected networking equipment it found during its research were devices from manufacturers including Linksys, MikroTik, Netgear and TP-Link”. No doubt it means that NYT decided to mentioned the most significant companies affected by the malware related problem. And MikroTik is among them. Sergeal (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Whether the company has one or a thousand employees is irrelevant. What is relevant is that this is an established viable company that has been producing networking equipment in specialized markets that were somewhat neglected by larger competitors, which has been cited in many independent articles that need to be found and added to the article, however. Just deleting and short-circuiting any effort of letting the article develop over time is shortsighted, and frankly stupid. The article is not advertising. Notable publications have written about the pros and cons of the company's products. Until more citations are found, perhaps a stub tag might be justified. Kbrose (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Established != notable. Provide the sources to back it up, thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

As I mention in my keep, MikroTik appears nearly 300 times in the major Latvian newspaper site, including technology leadership. There's also plenty of coverage of the company in English-language sources. I really don't understand what prompted any of the past nominations to delete the article other than no one cares about (fill in the name of any small country) corporations. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)