Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisco 12000

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. Based on the sources found by Mark and the nominator's changing of mind. After 5 long weeks, I'm happy to declare a keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco 12000[edit]

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

No reliable references, article primarily consists of original research. Unable to find sources to satisfy GNG No unique names 00:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~Keep and improve - meets WP:N. Reliable sources exist, with varying degrees of coverage.~~ Here are some examples from a Google Books search: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1-5 are from "Cisco Press" and 7 is from the "Cisco IOS Reference Library." --No unique names 21:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6 is two short paragraphs stating that someone chose to use Cisco gear, including this product. Not particularly in-depth. --No unique names 01:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 22:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the information, Nouniquenames. I've stricken my !vote above per this information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to NorthAmerica1000's findings, there is this industry newsletter, but it doesn't provide much information about the C12000 itself. In fact, fully a sixth of the newsletter article comes from a Cisco vice president. I'd hardly call that significant coverage. Quantumobserver (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: The debate wasn't added to the log last time it was relisted, or it was removed

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patchy1 22:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Somebody make a call, this is the 4th relisting. Wikipedia:RELIST#Relisting_discussions: "In general debates should not be relisted more than twice." Carrite (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't have relisted it normally, well in fact I didn't relist it, I listed it.... -- Patchy1 01:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So what did your search for sources turn up, Carrite? Or was "somebody" really "somebody else"? And that somebody else was expected to make a call based upon no help. My search for sources turned up Gredler & Goralski 2005, p. 30, which is Springer, not Cisco Press. I notice from the URLs in the four weeks past here that everyone is unimaginitively searching for only the article title, rather than for — just to pick one example of the several names that these things go by — "Cisco GSR" as given in the article content. Uncle G (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found a number of sources:
1. Register article on 12000 DoS vulnerability
2. Network World article
3. Network world article about 12000 use by Sprint and MCI
4. InternetWeek article, but it's behind the HighBeam paywall and I haven't read it
5. short article on the 12000 OS in ComputerWoche (German version of ComputerWeek)
6. CRN artcle on 12000 vulnerabilites
7. IDC technical reference on backplane for the 12000 This looks like an academic article from Stanford, but I can't verify that is peer-reviewed.

The Register, Network World, InternetWeek, and ComputerWeek are mainstream reliable publishers. CRN looks legit, but I don't know of them. Except for the HighBeam and the IDC sources, about which I an uncertain, these sources look to be independent of Cisco. It seems we have multiple independent sources, suggesting that the topic is notable and the article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from nominator based on sources recently unearthed. I will attempt to integrate them. --No unique names 02:46, 20 January 2013 (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.