:::::Oh, we're looking at the same page, you're just ignoring half of it. For example, note that points 10, 11 and 12 mentioned fall under "links normally to be avoided" as opposed to "links to always be avoided" or "links to on no account include ever". (Further note that point 11 has an addendum for "those written by a recognized authority"... the site's been recognised by Asus themselves, which is about as close as you'll get... and point 12 has an addendum for wikis with a history of stability and a large numbers of editors, which for a given value of "large" they have.) Further examples include; "Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines" (note guideline, rather than rule), and Links To Be Considered 4 "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.". We can go back and forth quoting particular lines that suit our side, but I say again it's made pretty clear that what is on that page are guidelines, recommendations, advice, but not rules... and that editors should make case-by-case judgements. In this case, that site should be included. We're only two voices here, we both have our thoughts on what should happen; I invite anyone else who has an opinion to weigh in.