Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlightLinux
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. While there seemed to be a bit of interest in merging, the merge opinions don't really seem to indicate where it would logically go, and no one's prevented from adding sourced material about it to any other article in any case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, on one hand it's a NASA project which gives it some vague notability, but on the other hand it's a Linux distribution whose sole claim to fame is that it was only meant to fly in space, while ultimately not used... all the while both NASA and ESA have actually used and will be using other distributions in space successfully. Due to being a minor "product", this would be Merge material if suitable target candidate is found, but if not, I'm not opposed to Deletion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Not notable enough for it's own article, but should be a redirect and mentioned somewhere. It's notable enough (being a NASA / ESA sponsored project) that it needs to be mentioned, just no here. Patch86 16:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I suspect it is notable but only as part of a merger. JodyB talk 18:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted in hope of a broader consensus. DES (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — And a merge isn't necessary because there are no indpendent dources to verify the content. *Cremepuff222* 01:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into ELKS if the article would otherwise be deleted (then have a debate about why it's there, then recreate this article... )- Peter Ellis - Talk 04:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the only reference is broken and the article is otherwise unsourced. Fails WP:V. TerriersFan 02:44, 24 June 2007 (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.