Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OPNsense

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. Headcount is reasonably close, but many of the keep arguments are from WP:SPAs; once those are reduced in weight, a clear delete consensus appears. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

OPNsense

OPNsense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional lovefest for non notable software. Article is build around the sources from the projects developers, blogs and download sites. There is a lack of coverage about OPNsense in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The article contains objective information, I do not see your point with the advert claim. Also a google search reveals great notability. I have added the following references to the article:

List of added references

Articles About OPNsense How to Install OPNsense Firewall on VritualBox Installing DNSCrypt in OPNsense You should try OPNsense, a pfSense fork Using OpenDNS with OPNSense OPNSense on DigitalOcean droplet Labs: Securing Your Home Fences Other References The Hunt For the Ultimate Free Open Source Firewall Distro OPNsense page on FreeBSD News BSD Now - Episode 072: Common *Sense Approach HardenedBSD Teams Up With OPNSense The Register - M0n0wall comes tumbling down (OPNsense mentioned as successor) References

Joswp (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Simply throwing references at a page will not make the inherent issues go away, namely that the vast majority of the references are primary, unreliable, or one-sentence mentions. Even if the above references were added in a relevant and meaningful manner (which they weren't), "how to" guides are not a sign of notability. Primefac (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I did not just throw some reference on a page, they are all very relevant. They contain reliable reviews written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.

Calling The register, BSD Now and FreeBSD News unreliable sources feels like an insult. Hope you can clarify.

Joswp (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You added two sections called "Articles about OPNsense" and "Other references", with no inline citations or sentences to match up to them (incidentally, they're identical to the list you added above). That is about as close to throwing references on a page as possible without simply copypasting a block of URLs.

I did make the mistake of switching topics halfway through a sentence, though: I was referring to the majority of the references on the page itself as being primary/not-RS/name-drops. I did, however, say "the majority," not "every single one," so even your additions qualify for my statement. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

In adition to what Primefac said, the references added are still irrelevant. They are not articles, just fan made guides on how to install OPNsense, which is not "reliable reviews written by independent authors and published by independent publishers".--Mnlth (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The references are way from being irrelevant, we are in the modernity, and these sources are called blogs, or blog articles, today, and are not, I repeat not rightfully to be pejoratively labeled 'fan stuff' per se. With software, especially relative new ones, one would just expect this come up on blogs, video-platforms, shows, other software project's pages if in search for coverage, as this article has abundantly. The user above has shown the software is standing relative within relevant and quality 3rd party coverage and sources. The critique here is in limits that qualify it for the resp. TP, first, which has no entry yet. --Miraclexix (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are being biased, especially after reading your replies and almost personal attack on Dilbertfan. The bottom line here is this, they have just a couple valid references. I posted a long review in my reply to Netfitch below. Please read it. OPNsense references are self-promoting and irrelevant fan made blog posts. Furthermore, the whole OPNsense wikipedia page is obviously a PR edited article which doesn't follow WP:GNG --Mnlth (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Page serves as self-promotion, company PR with irrelevant information and no evidence of most of the claims. Not satisfying most of WP:GNG.--Mnlth (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I cant manage to find any reliable secondary coverage longer than brief summaries, so does not satisfy WP:GNG. Dilbertfan (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep There is coverage about OPNsense in independent reliable sources. OPNsense's coverage in this regard is comparable to the situation with the article on pfSense, its predecessor (fork base). Difference is it is younger. The articles tone/ductus is towards objective info and discussions about its base, schematics, etc.pp. A search found 3rd party coverage, again like the situation with pfSense, which is only years older. Number of articles' sources from the projects developers, blogs and download sites is due to the rapid development after the fork and citation of bug fixes etc., and should be seen in relation to other core article portions which are covered by 3rd party sources. Since there is no discussion on this 6 month old articles' Talk Page, with other senior Wikipedia editors gotten by and adjusting it w/o any objections, one begins to wonder what exactly did get duffbeerforme s attention to get _this_ article on the doom list, exactly? If someone would object to the quality of the article - be not only my guest on the articles' TP --Miraclexix (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The difference being pfsense can be found to have reliable secondary coverage with a triviality of searching, e.g. the third result on an incognito google search for "pfsense" being this article, while the first result for OPNsense on google that is not A: It's own website B: Hardware vendors or C: pfsense groups talking about OPNsense (lol) is this, a website called "PR newswire" that barely makes the second page of results. Dilbertfan (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What you are discussing, Dilbertfan, gives no insight to the discussion here, because I have -in contradiction to your claims- the same results with pfSenses as with OPNsense as strings for anon search via ixquick:> A: own website B: hardware vendors/commercials or C: blogs/groups talking about the projects - giving that the first is a 7 month old project, the latter is a 11 year old project. Your article www.infoworld.com article on pfSense not only is in principle applying to both software, pfsense and opnsens, because they are very close related, but comes up on my search way later? You may had not deleted all your cookies? BTW Wikipedia is not serving as a link farm because of inherent prevention mechanisms, so why bother, anyway the way you argue?--Miraclexix (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what? The article on infoworld is not at all applicable to opnsense, because it never once even says the name! I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to mean (is it a personal attack? I honestly can't tell), but if your only argument is that "it's younger, so give it some time" then this should be deleted ASAP; wikipedia doesn’t make articles for children of celebrities 2 months after their birth because "give it time, the parent is notable and the kid will probably become notable later". Dilbertfan (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The guidelines state that "Any proposed deletion or AfD nomination of a software product should mention the sort of product it is, if that can be intelligibly derived from the article." and this AfD nomination fails to do so. Is the scope of the software unclear from the article? Are the guidelines being ignored? A defence against an ambiguous AfD is impossible especially since there *is* open-source / blog-based notability. A "search found nothing better" argument by allegedly sweeping the first few google pages does not warrant non-notability, also covered by the guidelines. Netfitch (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

References analysis

AfD nomination is very clear, you are simply ignoring it, which really doesn't make sense. It's crystal clear that WP:GNG is not satisfied. Furthermore, the page serves as self-promotion for the non-notable software. So of the references, 1,2,3,6,8,9,13,16,17,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,58,59,60,61,62,63 are all from the OPNsense ::website, or Franco, Jos or Ad (the authors of the software) Of the remaining articles, I’ve marked those as “Notable” with a leading asterisk. There are >two<. 4 & 5 are articles by Jos about his Netboard A10 product. Neither mentions OPNsense. That’s just spammy. **7 is an article on FreeBSDnews.com that basically just rephrases the Press Release from January. 10 is https://blog.pfsense.org/?p=114 “What does pfSense stand for/mean, anyway?" 11 is not notable, (it’s a press release) and is about Deciso, not OPNsense. The fragment that contains it is, "OPNsense is also committed to net ::neutrality and open source-community” 14 is about pfsense, not opnsense (to support the assertion that they forked from pfsense, which forked form m0n0wall 18 is basically an update to the same announcement 19 & 20 are about HardenedBSD, not OPNSense 21,22,23,34,25,26,27 are all fan sites 28 is https://www.freebsdnews.com/category/freebsd-based-operating-systems/pfsense/opnsense/ is just aggregation. It contains two links 1) same link as #7 2) the same link as #29 (below) therefore: (spammy spam spam) **29 is http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2015_01_14-common_sense_approach 30 same HardenedBSD link as #19 (more spammy spam spam) ** 31 Actual article at The Register. references 32-63 are not occurrent in the article. 40 Just says "FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE-p5, supported until December 31, 2016" 55 is a link to https://kb.isc.org/article/AA-01269/81/BIND-9.10.2-P2-Release-Notes.html 56 is a link to http://sourceforge.net/projects/freetype/files/freetype2/2.6/ 57 is a link to http://ftp.meisei-u.ac.jp/mirror/squid/squid-3.5.6-RELEASENOTES.html To sum up, just a few references are relevant out of many, many others which serve as irrelevant.--Mnlth (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC) edited again for better formatting--Mnlth (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Counts:_ The count of project related sources and citations vs 2ndary external sources is now 12 : 32 (out of 44 references in total, as of 14 August 2015) --Miraclexix (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

OPNsense wikipedia page is still an example of biased editing and promotional content. This really isn’t the first time this is happening, OPNsense page was already deleted before (for promotional content) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=OPNsense&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

Starting from the very second sentence of article, many things are wrong with OPNsense page. Examples of usage purposes are exaggerated, self-repeating, nonsensical (routers, could routers, UTM?!). Instead it should simply say it's a open-source software firewall. Adding marketing terms like “cloud” and “UTM” are proof that this page is being edited by biased PR mentality of OPNsense supporters.

Part about licensing “The OPNsense ports, source code and build environment are freely accessible without licensing costs and without special clauses attached” is exaggerated and biased. The editor is alluding that OPNsense is open source more than others, which doesn’t make any sense and is pure PR self-promotion.

Part regarding the name of OPNsense is a copy/paste from opnsense.org "About" page which is a PR article with absolutely incorrect and wrong information. Since OPNsense is fork of pfSense they are alluding that pfSense is not open and free, which is complete falsehood.

License and Trademark part of page is again full of self-promoting content and untruthful statements. Perfect example of irrelevant and self-promoting content “OPNsense is committed to open source community peer review and classical free & open access to its source code and build environment”.

"See also" lists “OpenBIOS” which has literally nothing to do with OPNsense other than having the word open in their name. OPNsense is not a BIOS ::firmware.--Mnlth (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary incivility

The User Mnlth is behaving as a troll and very biased towards pfSense. Everyone can see that the OPNsense article is just as good as many other articles on open source software on wikipedia and just as notable as pfSense. Joswp (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Wow, you got some nerve to call me biased. User joswp is presumably Jos Schellevis, owner of the company behind OPNsense, Deciso, and a lead person of OPNsense project. https://opnsense.org/about/about-opnsense/ and @jschellevis on Twitter. Furthermore, you are being investigated for using sock puppet accounts, yet you call me a troll? So basically anyone who provides factual proof on this page is a troll? Also, User Netfitch seems to be Franco Fitchner, OPNsense lead developer who has also been trying to "keep" this "promotional lovefest" as wonderfully described by use duffbeerforme. All this has been reported and is currently being investigated.--Mnlth (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Mnlth you are not only biased you are also making a lot of false acusations all around. You hide behind you account name here, on twitter (htilonom) as wel as on reddit. You are trolling. I am open about it and welcome anyone who wants to invetigate Mnlth or me to contact me so I can provide more proof about Mntlh's trolling. Admins help please! Joswp (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Joswp (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Again, guy behind OPNsense project is calling me biased. Guy who is actively working on keeping his self-promoting wikipedia page. And not only that, now I’m a troll because I provide facts? You are aware that there are 4 other people here who also think OPNsense wiki page is a self-promoting PR article? Are you now going to accuse me that I ::am behind their accounts? Let’s go trough some facts. 1. you just confirmed you are Jos Schellevis, guy behind OPNsense. Which also means user Netfitch is Franco Fitchner, another person from OPNsense, both ::employees of Deciso. So now we have proof that multiple persons from OPNsense project “defending” their PR article on wikipedia. 2. that also means you’re socking, which means you are breaking Wikipedia rules by having alternative accounts to create an illusion of support. You are ::basically breaking all possible rules pointed out here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts 3. Instead of facing valid points I have provided on this page you engage in personal attack and call me a “troll”. That really says a lot about your ::intentions and further proves you are nothing but a malicious person who is ready to abuse wikipedia just for the sake of self-promotion. The fact that you think I’m “hiding” behind some other nickname on twitter and reddit is laughable but also highly irrelevant. You are trying to divert attention from yourself, just like you did when you called me “biased towards pfSense”. Interestingly, you and user netfitch are also often editing pfSense wikipedia page in favour of promoting OPNsense (among other things). So please, don’t call me biased.--Mnlth (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More comments by established editors, please.  Sandstein  15:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep (weakly) and rewrite Whilst the article clearly has a COI and is almost definitely promoting the software somewhat, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Give the author some time to act upon it and if he cannot tone it down then by all means, delete the article. It does, however, contain substantial verified information and facts which should not be overlooked as the biased sections can simply be removed and the rest left as is. --Flobberz (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

More unnecessary incivility

Is this the "more established" editors according to user Sandstein ? For some reason user Flobberz ignores the fact that this page has already been deleted once because of same self-promoting content. Not to mention that we have rock solid proof that people who work on OPNsense (employers of Deciso) are working on this page conducting personal attacks and false accusations in order to "keep" the page.--Mnlth (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC) The fact that you just conducted a personal attack kind of voids your point. There's no need to take your frustration out on me, and like I said it is very clear that the page is biased. I'm not disputing that. However, deleting an article because of the actions of one or two is senseless, as, like I said, you can simply remove the biased elements rather than hurting Wikipedia by deleting an entire page, which could still potentially attract visitors who want to learn about the company/software. PS: You have no more right than I to comment on this page with your opinion. I am simply stating my opinion - that the page is not unsalvageable - so if I'm breaking any rules of Wikipedia, please point me to them and I'll be out the door. Otherwise, please allow me to go about my business.--Flobberz (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC) What are you talking about? Since when is pointing out the facts a personal attack? So far on this page I am being called a “troll” and for being biased here by people who are intentionally abusing wikipedia in order to self-promote their business. I’m sorry if I seem a bit “frustrated” as you called me. The problem with this page is that it’s constantly being edited by employers of Deciso, who are behind OPNsense. This is not the first time they did this as shown here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=OPNsense&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= Additionally, even this deletion page is full of their employees resorting to personal attacks, sock puppetry and lies in order to allow this nonsense. All of this has been reported and I’m looking forward to the results. Biased elements have not been removed, furthermore, biased elements are not the only thing that’s wrong with OPNsense wikipedia article. Whole article serves as PR stunt for non-notable software with irrelevant references and sources. Given all the facts I’ve provided, this page is definitely not in phase where fixing a few things would make it work. Regarding your PS: I too have full right to comment on this page, however as user Sandstein pointed out, it’s time for more established editors to speak their opinion considering suspicious accounts have attempted do “keep” this page.--Mnlth (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC) @Mnlth: #1) Why are you shouting out judgements prior to end of investigations ( if there are, I only have your [aggressive] word so far, shouldn't there be facts over rumors? )?- This qualifies as a personal attack, see WP:PERSONAL. #2) Are you trying to bend the outcome through hinting your access to secret information, attempting to give your say higher value(?) - or what is going on here: Wikipedia:NOTGOSSIP #3) Repeating your personally colored strong say over and over this page does not put any further good in here, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. #4) While this page is part of Wikipedia, it also serves a very special cause with inherent tensions and difficulties enough, in case you forgot, the general rule Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum all the more so does apply here. #5) A personal plea of mine: please let graces and reason prevail, no offense, thank you --Miraclexix (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Judgements? Really? Nice, you’re accusing me of something I didn’t do… actually, you’re accusing me of something you and other people on this deletion page are doing. That is called spin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28public_relations%29 Interestingly, it was you who launched a personal attack on Dilbertfan just because he disagrees with you and now you’re doing the same to me. Perhaps you should try to follow links you posted as well? @Mnlth: Unpleasant and non-helpful violations of Wikipedia guidelines! Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum ,WP:PERSONAL --Miraclexix (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Another thing, let’s check OPNsense edit history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPNsense&action=history Hmm, your nickname goes back from the beginning of the page. Now I understand why are you attempting to manipulate this deletion request. One could easily say that thanks to your edits, page got recommended for deletion. Which means that you are obviously biased just as actual OPNsense / Deciso employees here who are trying hard to keep this self-promoting PR article. Remember your words, Wikipedia is not about winning, nor its a forum. So if you’re prepared to call out someone, be 100% sure you are not wrong.--Mnlth (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC) @Mnlth: Multiple violations of Wikipedia guidelines! Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum ,WP:PERSONAL, Wikipedia:NOTGOSSIP,Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning, WP:CIVIL --Miraclexix (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC) @Miraclexix: All those links you posted apply to you, not to me. I find it amusing how you attempt to accuse me of things OPNsense employees and their supporters are doing on this page. You should try reading your links.--Mnlth (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• weak Delete I'd say merge but there is already information about it in the M0n0wall article. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON.--Savonneux (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to M0n0wall - I'm not sure what experienced editors have to do with anything, but here's my take: Given the lack of substantial sources, it looks like what needs to be said can and has been said in the M0n0wall article. This project fork is less than a year old, has one release, and really, the article is nothing more than a bunch of tech details. Nobody's used it, nobody's reviewed it, and all the press was at fork or is based off posts on the project forums, etc. GHits in order: site, this article, twitter, github. GNews: one release announcement in July 2015, and nothing since the fork in January. There's just nothing of substance here to meet GNG. MSJapan (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The article contains objective information. My opinion here is biased, I am a contributor to OPNsense, (and also a contributor to the pfSense project), but to add some context: OPNsense is a fork, and as forks of software go, this request for deletion is not very constructive.Ikedotike (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice, apart from main people from OPNsense project commenting here and basically doing meatpuppetry, now they got their "contributors" to do it as well. You guys might want to read this page first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry This just shows how corrupt OPNsense people are. Stop abusing wikipedia!--Mnlth (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mnlth: Multiple violations of Wikipedia guidelines! Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum ,WP:PERSONAL, Wikipedia:NOTGOSSIP,Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning, WP:CIVIL --Miraclexix (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Miraclexix: Why are you accusing me of something that you are doing? What's the point in that? Everyone who sees reads this page will notice meatpuppetry by employees of OPNsense and their biased supporters like you. I'm not doing anything wrong, I'm pointing that out.--Mnlth (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete This is worse than the copy I deleted as G11 a while ago - it's a massive reference bomb mask. The vast majority of those citations aren't related to the subject and most of the narrative is just padding. The reality is most of these projects are simply not notable because they are rarely covered in reliable sources. We need to revisit WP:NSOFT at some point and perhaps lower the bar for topics like these, but for now this fails WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to M0n0wall, as per MSJapan's comment. It's also too soon, maybe. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:33, 23 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.