Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feather Linux (2nd nomination)

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 redirect‎ to Knoppix#Unmaintained projects. Redirecting was the obvious consensus in this debate, if there is further objection to said redirect, this can be discussed at RfD. Daniel (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feather Linux

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources beside reviews and passing mentions. Existing sources seem rather specialized and non-reliable. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect (over deletion): It is not listed at Comparison of Linux distributions or Light-weight Linux distribution despite those pages being in its See Also section. It is listed in Template:Linux_distributions but differs significantly from the other bluelinks in "Other derivatives:" in that its maximum version was 0.7.5, it had a lifespan of what looks to be under two years and appears to have no significant coverage/impact. It is listed at List of Linux distributions and Knoppix#Unmaintained projects. It shouldn't remain as an article or in the template, and doesn't need to remain in the List article given the Knoppix family tree indicates that the practice is not to list non-notable derivatives. It should, however, remain at Knoppix given what else is there, so redirect is slightly preferred over deletion and relying on search. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect tp Light-weight Linux distribution this version of Linux hasn't been updated in a long time but you never know when something might get resurrected. Dr vulpes (Talk) 14:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it's worth listing there because every distribution mentioned in that article has an article of its own. Needlessly populating it with random distributions would result in unnecessary listcruft. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as a redirect not needing a relist to determine target consensus. or admin action to enable it. However , Champion thinks a relist would be better for more eyeballs here v. Talk so I have happily relisted for that discussion to happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Knoppix: that, I believe, is the closest living relative. Owen× ☎ 22:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another derivative also listed at that table was closed as delete recently, I don't see how this one should be any different. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Knoppix#Unmaintained projects. The other proposed redirect targets are to lists that require each entry to have a standalone article, which this would then fail and so would be removed from those lists making them non-viable targets for redirection. The article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, but that looks like a viable AtD. I think deletion is also reasonable, however. - Aoidh (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2024 (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.