Open-source firmware: WP:GNG fail.  -- Yae4 ( talk ) 08:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Article Sources :  Only one of the four current cites looks remotely reliable (and I have not verified that one). Hackaday sources: PhotographyEdits thanked me for removing them from another article: "Thanks for fixing the Hackaday issue!"  In context, fixing == deleting the cites. PC Gamer looks questionable, and the cited article is brief, not significant coverage. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 20:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software .  Yae4 ( talk ) 08:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , this meets WP:LISTN and some extensive sources have been written on the subject of open-source firmware, such as the book "System Firmware - An Essential Guide to Open Source and Embedded Solutions" (ISBN 9781484279380).  PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 08:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That may be one.  I can't verify.  Are there more?  Hackaday and PC Gamer don't do it.  -- Yae4 ( talk ) 10:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is an article in ACM: https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3349301 PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 10:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting. It does not mention Libreboot . -- Yae4 ( talk ) 11:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody has mentioned Libreboot here, so I am not sure what you're referring to.  jp × g 18:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : if an entire technical book has been written on the topic, it seems pretty obviously notable.  Moreover, the fact that we've got articles on individual pieces of open-source firmware would seem to logically imply that the concept itself was notable.  Finally, the nominator has not commented on the four sources that currently exist on the article -- are those no good? jp × g 18:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, I did comment on them, immediately above, but I'll make it more obvious, in the nomination. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 20:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, but are they good?  You say that they "don't do it", but I don't know what this means.  Previous WP:RSN discussions about PC Gamer mention that it is " as reliable as anything can be in that space. I'd have no issues with using them for references. " and one of " multiple sources we consider reliable ", and consensus about Hackaday there is unclear but it definitely is not on the shitlist.  If there is an actual, concrete issue with these sources, then I would be interested in hearing it, since they are used as references in a good number of articles.  jp × g 05:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JPxG : See WP:WHATABOUT or similar.  Anyway, you already weighed in at AfD for Libreboot.  Please use your preferred word search method at Talk:Libreboot for "hackaday".  There you will find multiple editors saying it is not a good source, and find PhotographyEdits thanking me for removing them from that article.  And see the Diff added to Article sources in the nomination.  -- Yae4 ( talk ) 10:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not sure what you are talking about. Is your interpretation of WP:WHATABOUT that it is forbidden to cite any consensus anywhere for a decision on anything? jp × g 00:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources exist to meet WP:GNG -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 21:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep likely with the sources that existed in the article and searching Open Library finds a significant coverage of various open-source firmwares, many of them which a brief description of what that means ( [91] , [92] , [93] , [94] , [95] , [96] , [97] ).  I also added a link and source to Rockbox since it seems to meet the requirements.  I haven't looked elsewhere for sources at this time.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As pointed out the topic is notable.  In the case of technology lists, we also face the question, "but should we have it?" (in other words, what about WP:NOT ?) The fact is, this is also a useful, focused list and it meets WP:NLIST .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:05, 23 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep