Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unity Linux

Unity Linux

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

Tagged for notability since 2013. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) No major reviews listed in its entire history at DistroWatch. Only hits from reliable sources in my custom tech sources search were two Softpedia hits for new version releases, but even those were repackaged press releases (full of PR copy, no original reporting). (Rest of hits were largely for Ubuntu's Unity or for the Unity game engine, even after paring down the search.) Only redirect target with any potential would be the mention at Mandriva_Linux#Derivatives, on which Unity Linux is based. czar 21:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar 21:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this review at TuxRadar and an announcement from de:Pro-Linux, but there doesn't seem to be significant coverage. If we could find some more reviews, that'd be enough to save it, but I'm not too keen on glorified press releases from Softpedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Mandriva_Linux#Derivatives where it is mentioned. I am not totally sure that mention is due weight, and if we delete it, Unity Linux should not be redirected per WP:SURPRISE. But well, it is a verifiable one-liner, so... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mandriva Linux#Derivatives (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Preserving the history will allow the redirect to be undone and the article restored easily if more reviews are found. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect if needed because there's no need to keep the history and contents if it's in fact not notable, let alone convincing as it's own article, and this software was last active 6 years ago, so it's a long fetch to suggest it could be improved soon; therefore we delete as we have with other articles since it's confirmed as both not notable and unimprovable. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]