Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux XP

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. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linux XP

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

LinuxXP was discontinued in 2009, all three 'external links' are no longer in use. It's essentially a skinned Fedora install, and not notable outside of that. SudoGhost (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability isn't temporary. [1] [2] [3] Adding to the article. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TechieMoe.com is a blog, and and tuxmachines.org entry is user-submitted, which falls under WP:SPS. Neither of which can establish notability. The linux.com review is the only source that can establish notability, just about everything I found online was blogs, nothing that establishes notability (with the exception of the one linux.com review). - SudoGhost (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The others are weaker, true, but not trivial even if they don't pass RS, but if you check Scholar, (takes some filtering) you see it is given more than a passing mention in benchmark comparisons. In an admittedly borderline case like this, I always ask myself "Which is better for Wikipedia, keeping or deleting?" (via WP:IAR and others). In this case, it was a real software package, is still being used, and was the subject of at least some study, one major review (The Linux.com article is pretty extensive) and even the "less reliable" sources are serious sources that aren't lined with row after row of Google ads. That it was only a "shell" on top of RedHat doesn't matter as to notability, as CentOS is technically even less, being RedHat with the logos stripped. Regardless, in borderline cases where there aren't issues of it being spam, BLP, NPOV, etc., I think keeping is a better solution as it improves Wikipedia more than deleting it does. And when all is said and done, the 'rules' were made with that singular purpose in mind. I will also say that this is a difficult term to search for ("Linux, xp" keeps cropping up, which is unrelated), so there may be more refs that are not so easy to find, yet exist. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per linux.com review. Chester Markel (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discontinued is not a reason for deletion; rather, that we included things important in the past also is one of the things that makes us an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 16 May 2011 (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.