Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xebian

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to review this on my talk page on 6 December 2011. I can see that I went delete based on the argument that this was unreferenced and therefore OR. We don't generally merge OR we delete it. However, there is evidence of marginal sources so a selective merge is an appropriate outcome so I have history restored and any editor is free to merge any source-able content. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xebian

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

No references (and the one external link seems to be dead), no assertion of notability, article is too much 'how-to'. RJFJR (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POTENTIAL. Source review (hit the 'books' and 'scholar' links up there) shows probable notability. Not an A7 candidate, so does not need to assert notability; "too much how-to" is a content issue and not relevant to a deletion debate unless removal of all WP:NOT#GUIDE information would leave no article. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:38, 28 June 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) 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to XBox Responding to the argument to keep per WP:POTENTIAL, close analysis of the scholar articles show that they do not provide in-depth coverage on Xebian's underlying structure, rather, it seems to be exclusively used to hack the XBox console to boot it with a new OS to perform other tasks. Furthermore, in the "books" search, the same sort of sources appear, which also include a how-to for installation of Xebian. Again, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Although the Xbox page already mentions Xebian as an X-Box OS, some details from these sources could be used to show what Xebian can do. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 04:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above or weak keep. The books Practical MythTV and Advances in Digital Forensics III are good for verification. I find their significance to be borderline. Marasmusine (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I quickly was able to find coverage in numerous secondary sources. Obviously exceeds satisfaction of WP:NOTE. This includes 75 results in news articles, in addition to 32 results in books, and also 8 journal articles from academic sources. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough to just quote the number of hits on these searches. For example, the Books search does say "about 32 results" but its actually 20, 14 of which refer to other uses of the word, and the remainder are trivial mentions or unusable (e.g. Books Llc draw their material from Wikipedia). Above I identify the two usable results. Marasmusine (talk) 08:38, 4 July 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.