Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opkg

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opkg

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This piece of software does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:NSOFT. The page was proposed for deletion by HyperAccelerated in March 2024 and subsequently redirected to dpkg; however, the redirect was recently removed by an IP with the rationale: "opkg has nothing in common with dpkg (aside of being a package manager), redirecting to dpkg is confusing". Notability is questionable, so I'm taking to AfD to establish consensus about a better redirect target (if not to delete entirely). Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice that Ipkg, which opkg is apparently based on, is currently a redirect. If the predecessor software is more notable, it might make sense to restore the Ipkg article and redirect opkg to there. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP: GNG. I'm fine with a different redirect target, but in the absence of one that everyone can agree upon, I would prefer to delete. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This piece of software is used to manage installation of application packages on OpenWRT router firmware. It was the subject of a Critical RCE bug a few years ago. As a command used on that operating system, a short mention of this in the OpenWRT page might be appropriate, but I cannot find sufficient mention of it in its own right to satisfy notability requirements. Djonesuk (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperAccelerated and Djonesuk: Out of curiosity, if this article ends up being deleted, what do you think the best course of action would be for the Ipkg redirect that is currently targeted to the article? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the standard procedure is for that redirect to be deleted as well, but I'm less worried about that at the moment. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Bolingbroke I have never heard of ipkg. According to this forum post, opkg was originally forked from ipkg but it has since disappeared from the internet. Nuke. Djonesuk (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the sources provided does not have WP:SIGCOV. My attempt to find more sources failed, but then the search results are cluttered with how-to hacking manuals for OpenWRT and PERCEUS OPKG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Викидим (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to dpkg, to which it is closely related. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2025 (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.