Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux Unified Kernel

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. No policy based keep votes and the consensus is that this is unsourced Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Unified Kernel

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

Article depends on majority of sources that lead to the project page. This is a variant of Wine thrown into the Linux kernel pretty much. ☭FryPod 23:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nope. LUK is a pretty standard kernel development tree. In fact the longevity of the article suggests as much, and it's hardly a primary source article. Shadowjams (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ into Linux kernel which currently does not even mention this version. There's a book about this but the lack of significant references in other sources indicate that this lacks sufficient notability to stand by itself. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shadowjams above. -Welhaven (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - David Gerard (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since when were "a pretty standard kernel development tree" and "the longevity of the article" reasons for having an article? No mainstream reliable sources have been presented, and the book mentioned by Colonel Warden is from VDM Publishing, whose business model is based on not doing any editorial review. It seems that many editors have a much lower standard of notability when it comes to articles about techno-geekery than about subjects that concern the vast majority of our target audience. This may be an encyclopedia mostly written by nerds, but it is not an encyclopedia for nerds. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that book looked fishy - thanks for clarifying that point. My impression is that the prejudice being displayed here is to favor open source topics. This is insufficient given the clear lack of independent sources and so I agree that we should Delete this. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note The nominator of this AFD has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of banned user Pickbothmanlol. –MuZemike 18:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- LUK is not another Wine or anther Reactos. The technique of LUK is different from the one of Wine although LUK utilize lots codes of Reactos and Wine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.65.55.199 (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources, and IIRC that's the main issue of notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very hard to add anything beyond what Phil Bridger has said, so I won't. The keep arguments here seem to make a case for inherent notability but I'm far from convinced.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Granted, the article itself needs sources. A quick google search, however, indicated the site had been covered in a number of reputable news sites, so I think it meets the criteria. ffm is now L Faraone 01:53, 11 August 2010 (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.

Why?- The article had existed three years ago, it is deleted today. Sad, But what is the exact reason you resolve to delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.21.48.196 (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The article is archived here: http://www.thefullwiki.org/Linux_Unified_Kernel and I have an extra copy myself, if it should be lost again. Another thing to keep in mind, is that the official website has made a link to the article, which could mean that there is a kind of coverage on the the sources. --PowerPatrick (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the archive of the Linux Unified Kernel article by the way. 75.41.102.26 (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This is a great example of the valuable model used by Wikipedia and MediaWiki. The information provided was hardly useful - at best it mirrored information which ought to be available from the developer itself. It wasn't just someone's opinion that the article wasn't notable or was poorly formed: consensus was that the article was mostly unsourced and the few keep votes there were did not produce a compelling argument. This was not notable - due to the open nature of the Linux kernel, branches thereof are a dime a dozen and this one in particular adds little compared to any other kernel + regular user-space Wine. And no, the official website linking to the article does not constitute a "kind of coverage on the sources". It just means that the developers decided that linking to their own Wikipedia article made them noteworthy or special enough to advertise that on their main page. What they do on their own webspace certainly has nothing to do with what Wikipedia does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.6.122 (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]