Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wubuntu

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. MarioGom, you're free to make the move. asilvering (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wubuntu

[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)

Lacks independent in-depth coverage to pass WP:NCORP. UPE history as well (see User:Tristancr). Gheus (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: very easily found https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-i-no-longer-recommend-this-windows-like-linux-distro/ and https://www.pcworld.com/article/2532994/3-free-linux-distros-that-look-and-feel-like-windows.html and https://betanews.com/2024/01/23/this-free-windows-11-clone-with-copilot-ai-has-been-updated-download-it-now/ -- is there a reason these were not mentioned in the nomination? jp×g 🗯️ 03:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~ZDNET's reliability has been shaky since 2020 (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 430#RfC: Red Ventures)~~, but there's other sources. BetaNews was a "good site" in 2001 per [1], though it is possible that its quality has changed in the past twenty-and-some years. PC World is listed as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, and the coverage is significant. I also found significant coverage in an article from The Register. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 17:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note on ZDNET: The website is currently listed as generally unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but it is no longer owned by Red Ventures as of last year. The article in question demonstrates an effort to get things right ("We've pulled the original content..."), which is encouraging. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 17:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's been in-depth coverage, especially from The Register. I have stubified and rewritten the article to be based exclusively in reliable sources and remove any concern about promotional content. Also note that they have renamed to Winux (it seems they rename each time there's bad press). After closing the AFD, the article should be moved to Winux. --MarioGom (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem notable or widley covered. At least not enough for stand alone article. Does feel like product promotion. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:49, 14 May 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.