Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AUCS Linux

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AUCS Linux

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

Declined PROD by article's creator. Article has zero third-party sources and fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Aoidh (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom - all three refs are own web-site - no independent refs, no evidence of any notability. Purely promotional Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable Linux distribution. A search for sources turned up nothing at all of significance, nothing on Distrowatch, nothing anywhere. Completely fails WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Software and WikiProject Linux, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - Totally non-notable. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability on Wikipedia is not measured by how many people may or may not be using a Linux distribution. As explained at WP:N it is determined by the existence of independent third party references, like magazine reviews. This is for two reasons, 1. so that an article can be actually written with some objective comment and criticism, not having to rely only on primary sources, which are naturally biased in favour of the subject and 2. to prevent Wikipedia from being used for promotional purposes, such as to advertise a new Linux distro that is only being used by a handful of people. If it is too new to have any third party reviews then WP:TOOSOON applies. As far as mentioning it on the Arch Linux or Manjaro Linux pages, without third party refs it isn't notable enough for inclusion anywhere. Also I have to ask, you claim above that "over 500 people are shown to be using it currenly". Where is the proof of that? - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON, no third-party reliable sources can be found on Google. -- intgr [talk] 07:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article indeed fails to establish its notability as required by WP:GNG. Moreover, it is so devoid of actual content that I think it barely escapes the A3 criteria for speedy deletion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I the author request deletion. Once 3rd party sources are found, we can un-delete the page. However, after reviewing policy, I find it to be worthy of deletion. Perhaps we combine it with Manjaro Linux untill it has 3rd party sources. I recommend that this plan be executed immediately as I am the author.Smokey2022 (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Without third party sources it is not ~~notable~~ verifiable enough to even mention in Manjaro Linux or other articles, see WP:SPAM. - Ahunt (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ahunt: Just to nitpick, the correct policy against covering it in some other article is verifiability, not notability. Quoting WP:N: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article" -- intgr [talk] 11:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point, thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:G7, the author has now requested deletion (and all other non-SPA !voters agree). Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Munja (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it should be kept? Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Educational purposes. No reason not to introduce all Linux distros on Wikipedia, even if they are less popular. --Munja (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Um, you might want to review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Articles still need to have third party references to meet WP:GNG or they cannot be retained. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from confirmed socks. Mike V • Talk 22:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article should not be deleted as AUCS has been downloaded by 1000 people and is being used by many, including myself.Anon01110111 (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC) — Anon01110111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment -Sorry but a handful of people using a distro is not a reason to have an encyclopedia article on it. This is just WP:ILIKEIT. You should probably read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and reformulate your post here to give a better reason based on policy. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The article can be modified to contain 3rd party sources once they arive. However, since this is such a new distro, I reccomend keeping the article. Will33333 (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Will33333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Once they arrive?" This a direct contradiction of Wikipedia's founding policies. This article has come simply too soon. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This distribution is fairly new and recent, so allow some time for 3rd party sources to arrive.Catcorpteam (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Catcorpteam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
When such sources do appear, you're encouraged to restore the article at WP:DELREV. -- intgr [talk] 07:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just a note here, WP:SOCKPUPPET "keep votes" are not counted and will just result in a block for the sock-master. - Ahunt (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "The distribution you requested does not exist in our database", DistroWatch about "AUCS". –Be..anyone (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.