Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux Software Map

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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Software Map

[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)

Obscure topic without 3RR or importance Greatder (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: There are a few articles written by a single group: [1], [2], plus some other coverage: [3], [4], [5]. Even though the first group of sources shares roughly the same authors, and the second group of sources doesn't contain a lot of coverage, the sources should demonstrate bare notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpful Raccoon Wikipedia is not a manual(Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples.

These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity.) ref 1 is a passing mention, 3,4 has only one paragraph. 5 is just using the map to find licenses not treating the topic independently. Reference 2 details what LSM is and how they used it, but again wikipedia is not a manual and shouldn't have article on every single topic that is required to publish a software. It is better situated in perhaps Wikibook. Greatder (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is not just a passing mention, it contains plenty of coverage in pages 5-7. However, I'm just now seeing that ref 1 states that this group is closely connected to a major repository that uses LSM, the UNC MetaLab Linux Archives. That's enough to throw independence into doubt, so I'm withdrawing my keep vote. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 4 March 2025 (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.