Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Note OS
Appearance
- Note OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability disputed. Linux-based operating system released yesterday May 25th (on its first stable version). Of the three references, two are primary and the other is an unreliable blog hosted by Wordpress. The "about" section of such site claims that "Saved Computing is a blog on computing, which also includes helpful tips, articles, and more." Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 04:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Merge to Slax. I couldn't find any third-party references to establish notability, but we could mention it at the Slax article, seeing as Note OS was forked from the Slax distribution. It seems too soon for Note OS to have its own article now, but if third-party sources appear in the future then there's no reason why we couldn't restore the current version and improve the sourcing. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Merge to Slax - As noted by the article creator at Talk:Note OS, he is also the creator of the Linux distro which is the subject of the article, meaning that this article was essentially started to promote his distro. Furthermore there are no independent third party refs so this subject fails WP:N, as non-notable. If the consensus is not to merge as a mention in Slax then I would support deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tow talk 22:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 02:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. No coverage in independent third-party sources. Far too soon for the subject to have established any notability. No need to merge. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep interesting young distro --Hiddenray (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Hiddenray! Unfortunately, comments based on how interesting the subject is don't carry very much weight at all in deletion discussions - see here for the reasons why. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see. I ain't a bureaucrat, so i just said my point of view without reading all policies before. However i think that the article should be kept. Moreover, estimate the notability from external sources is a questionable way to estimate the worthiness of subjects. If the owner of this linux distribution had enough money to corrupt bloggers and journals you'd have hundreds of articles and sources... and the very same linux distribution. IMHO keeping the article damages no one and helps everyone --Hiddenray (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- On the contrary; external sources are the only means we have of estimating the notability of subjects. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see. I ain't a bureaucrat, so i just said my point of view without reading all policies before. However i think that the article should be kept. Moreover, estimate the notability from external sources is a questionable way to estimate the worthiness of subjects. If the owner of this linux distribution had enough money to corrupt bloggers and journals you'd have hundreds of articles and sources... and the very same linux distribution. IMHO keeping the article damages no one and helps everyone --Hiddenray (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Hiddenray! Unfortunately, comments based on how interesting the subject is don't carry very much weight at all in deletion discussions - see here for the reasons why. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - User:Hiddenray said "Moreover, estimate the notability from external sources is a questionable way to estimate the worthiness of subjects". You are free to believe that but it is a widely accepted Wikipedia guideline and determines whether an article is kept or not. The reasons for this are not merely bureaucratic in nature, because without reliable third party references a proper encyclopedia article cannot be written and Wikipedia would simply degenerate into a blog where any opinion could be presented as fact. - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)