Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SharkLinux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by (talk | contribs) at 18:41, 6 October 2017 (SharkLinux: fix spacing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
SharkLinux (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)

PROD was contested. This appears to be a non-notable Linux distribution. None of the sourcing I found when doing WP:BEFORE appears to get past the standards of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above; in addition the article is promotional in tone. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per DistroWatch.com, currently ranked 3rd among Linux Distributions in user ratings. Featured Review in Linux Format Magazine, issue 229 October, 2017. Release (last 'major') announcement published by DistroWatch.com, Linux Format Magazine (Australia) Issue 'Summer 2017' and republished by various online sources. Recently featured article for ECT News which ran on front pages of Linux Insider, TechNewsWorld and E-Commerce Times and republished by several independent outlets in at least 5 languages. Subject of DistroWatch Weekly Issue 717 feature story.

Linked to file detailing long list of sources as well as pdf versions of printed articles that may be unavailable or difficult to access online.[1]

Re: Promotional tone - I recently edited the article reducing it to half the original size in an effort to address that concern after it was flagged for being promotional in tone. While the original editor who flagged seemed to accept the revision (has made edits since then and not issued flags) suggestions or edits to further improve the article are welcome and appreciated Marpet98 (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]