Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux Documentation Project

Linux Documentation Project

Fails WP:WEB. Regardless of how well-known the project is in its niche, it hasn't been covered significantly by multiple independent sources. The article's claims to fame are as follows: that it was the first Linux-related website on the Internet (which is unsourced, and of dubious notability), and that some of its content has seen dead-tree publication (which is of no concern because notability isn't inherited). Contested prod (which for some reason was open for seventeen days). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Did you do a Google News search on this? I came up with quite a number of 3rd party – credible – reliable and verifiable sources, as shown here [1]. Also Google Scholar contains quite a bit of information as shown here [2]. I’ll inline cite over the next couple of days. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's quite notable; the article should be improved, rather than deleted. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources found by ShoesssS are more than enough to demonstrate notability. Scog (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is notable because it is described in most printed books about linux. --Itub (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Taking my 1998 copy of Red Hat Linux Unleashed down from the bookshelf, I find that Appendix A is devoted to a short explanation of LDP along the lines of this article. William Avery (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are pages on Wikipedia that link to the Linux Documentation Project (for example, the article on NCurses) and which cite it as a reference. If it's good and unique enough to be considered a reference, it ought to have its own page. The proposal to delete is puzzling.