Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OPNsense (2nd 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OPNsense

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

This has passed through AfC after a lot of drama. See discussion here at Talk:AfC, the old draft here, this COIN discussion, and this ANI discussion. I believe that this subject ~just~ makes it through N, and I support this article being here to tone down the disruption caused by advocates of this product and its rival, Pfsense. But am opening a deletion discussion to get feedback after User:Staszek Lem tagged this for N. So let's keep this or delete this already. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'delete'. No evidence of particular notability beyond a couple of press-releases. and run-ff-the-mill reviews. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Stroke down the vote temporarily, to review the issue better. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean struck. 104.163.155.42 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brief review of available sources:

Two references already in the article:

Linux Format magazine article reposted on techradar.com; comparison of 5 products, OPNsense gets smaller than 1/5 share of the article; RS
infoworld.com (in the article is repost via CIO); comparison of 6 products; behind paywall, can´t say how much content devoted to OPNsense; RS

Best other sources I found so far:

pro-linux.de - mid size news about version 17.7 (German); webpage claims [1] to have "Redaktion", but it looks like one man staff; still, probably RS
root.cz - solid looking comparison of both pfSense a OPNsense (Czech speakers only...); claims to have editorial oversight over submited articles [2]; probably RS
heise.de/iX - mid size news about version 17.1 (German); RS
heise.de/iX (German) - short to mid size news about version 16.7; RS

pfSense vs OPNsense editwar reminds me of Blue/Red war among Amiga users few years ago... There is some RS coverage, but not yet in quality I would like. Despite that, I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I accepted this AfC submission based on what I saw as favorable analysis of sources in this discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the above. Additionally, more euro based sources exist as well as Wikipedia pages in other languages. See:

[3] SANS ISC news reporting 16.7 release. RS. Cyrix2k (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Cyrix2K looks like an SPA. No offense if I am wrong.104.163.155.42 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. I'm a lurker on Wikipedia, but the account name has been on the internet for over a decade. I have no affiliation other than as a user of both OPNsense & pfSense (among many other firewalls). That said, the article should be better sourced, but I feel it is notable enough for inclusion.Cyrix2k (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not look that notable. Half of the article is about a domain dispute. The other half amounts to a product ad. There are some references given but they are all industry generated, aka weak and promotion-driven. The COIN discussion really points to a strong promotional drive behind the article. I don't think the sources establish notability.104.163.155.42 (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the trivia-oriented domain dispute and the PRNewswire source. PRN? Seriously? What's left is weak int he extreme. Who do you suppose runs "linuxDistroWatch" and are we seriously ok with using junk sources like this?104.163.155.42 (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an interesting discussion. These type of products become known in the industry through different outlets than typical. DistroWatch is fairly well known. InfoWorld is a very well known and widespread sources, and SANS is one of the best known security authorities. Coverage in these outlets should count as notable in my opinion. Cyrix2k (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why is AfD being used to generate a discussion about an article that the nominator says should be kept? This is not Articles for Keeping. LOL. Seems like an improper AfD nomination that could be closed immediately as it gives no reason for deletion.104.163.155.42 (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator´s rationale is clear: there are doubts about notability of the article topic and AfD is the best way to solve this problem. That is the very reason AfD process exists on Wikipedia... Pavlor (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I've tried to wade my way through all the past ANIs and discussions on this topic. On balance (and I feel ashamed I can't cite policy here to back up my view), my gut feeling is this short, non-promotional article should be retained. I think reading the detailed findings of the World Intellectual Property Organization complaint helped sway it for me. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to pfSense as this is hardly notable fork of pfSense. Almost all of the references mention it as a fork of pfSense. I don't think being a fork of a notable software would automatically make it notable too. I was not able to find any references to the World Intellectual Property Organization complaint in any good open source related or technology review websites that I know of. (I do acknowledge the two Czech sources, but I am unable to confirm the reliability of those). It seems the only claim of significance here is being a fork of pfSense and the WIPO complaint against pfSense. I don't believe this deserves an article all by itself. Wouldn't this be much better of mentioned in the pfSense article?--DreamLinker (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No one is disputing m0n0wall as an article, or on the source Listicle that generates so much controversy, despite it being discontinued. If you browse to the homepage of m0n0wall however, you will see it directs people to use OPNSense as a replacement product. I managed to discover it while researching a router refresh - yet stumbled into an edit war between some editors with clear personal biases once I tried to update wiki. Some links that establish it as a notable product in my eyes, as someone researching professional level routing hardware are listed below from the last time I refreshed my router 6-8 months ago - Peter.dolkens (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* m0n0wall (linked in the article in question) directly says to use OPNSense now on every page: http://m0n0.ch/wall/index.php

* pcengine (who specialize in small-form-factor hardware for running router software) list it as a supported distribution here: https://www.pcengines.ch/alix.htm

* miniserver offer official support for the distribution: https://www.miniserver.it/support/pfsense-opnsense-support.html

* miniserver offer it as the default distribution for some products: https://www.miniserver.it/home-page-products/compact-small-utm-pfsense-opnsense-hardware.html

* pfwhardware provide professional-grade hardware, preloaded with OPNSense, direct from their homepage: http://www.pfwhardware.com/

* applianceshop also appear to specialise in, and distribute OPNSense hardware: applianceshop.eu/opnsense-small-ghz.html

* German Wiki has a listing for it here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPNsense (I'd translate if I knew German)

keep I realize that it is perhaps odd for me to !vote since I nominated this, but as I explained in my OP I nominated this to address the N tag. In my view OPNsense passes the notability bar - there are sufficient independent, reliable sources that give significant discussion to it now. There is no sign the product is going away so there will only be more as time goes on. We will have to keep an eye on this pages and similar ones to prevent them from becoming product brochures, but I think that is do-able without excessive effort. It passed AfC, and has had further work done, and passing AfD as "keep" on top of that should lay N concerns finally to rest. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2017 (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.