Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ark Linux

Ark Linux

I am nominating several articles for linux distributions. The articles have been tagged with the need for references for over six months and none have turned up. All of the distributions tagged have notability issues due to lack of third party coverage. Wikipedia is not a directory of linux distributions.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The following articles are also included in this debate:
   ALT Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   Annvix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   Caixa Mágica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   KnoppMyth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   VectorLinux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   Sidux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   PLD Linux Distribution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep openSUSE as definitely a notable distribution. Neutral on the others. the wub "?!" 16:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep openSUSE] per the wub. Clearly notable. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed openSuse from the AfD, sorry about that. No one ever removed the references needed template from last year.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on VectorLinux -- looks like it has one or two sources, but it is on the very edge of notability. Delete all the others as unsourced. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 19:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought all of the Vector sources were first party sites, press releases and directory listings. Did I misread them?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Knoppmyth.[1][2] I'm neutral on the rest, but feel it may have been better to raise these as separate AfD's. The issues surrounding each are clearly going to be quite different. -- Mark Chovain 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could place those new references in the myth article, it's currently very lacking in third party sources and my searches didn't bring much up.Both of those are good references.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm going to put them in, I'd rather incorporate them properly, so it will need to wait a bit (busy at work at the moment). It's not all that important to an AfD that the references actually be in there (the topics need to be notable, but that notability need not be established in the article). BTW, for reference, I googled "knoppmyth review" to pull those up. -- Mark Chovain 22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]