Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feather 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feather Linux

Lacks WP:N. Chealer (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Despite being a free software which often don't receive the publicity they deserve, this distro has received reviews in magazines and linux-related websites[1][2]. There are How-To's and other general mention in books (search it up on Google Books). It is on Distrowatch, which adds to the notability further. Magazines, websites such as distrowatch and books are all independent sources—that's what Wikipedia:Notability wants. There is no specific guideline to gauge the notability of software because Wikipedia:Notability (software) is dead.Magic.Wiki (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Chealer won't be happy until Wikipedia has only three articles: God, Michael Jackson, & Coca-Cola. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Be sure to assume good faith sir. WP:AGF, WP:AAGF. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - One can ignore reality only so long. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Magic.Wiki. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the following web searches:
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  - there appears to be significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Yellowweasel (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified above. Not in the article != doesn't exist. StarM 22:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to have significant coverage Dream Focus 02:42, 25 February 2009 (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.