Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoblinX

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. Cirt (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoblinX

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

This software distribution does not appear to be the subject of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reyk _YO! 07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is a Brazilian Linux distro. I found some coverage: [1] Linux.com, [2] MakeUseOf (site looks ok: [3] [4] [5], cited by other more serious media, might even deserve an article here; the newer article is by same author as the linux.com one, Susan Lipton, so allowable pe WP:SPS anyway), there are a few more articles on her own site, not all written by her [6] [7] (Susan Lipton = srlinuxx), also in other language [8] IDG Germany, [9] LinuxUser, [10] CHIP (magazine) Turkey; coverage probably exists in Portuguese as well. Pcap ping 06:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any of those are any good. Linux.com can hardly be described as independent, since this is just a Linux distribution (and the fact that Linux has innumerable distributions makes it rather unlikely that any specific one will be notable). Makeuseof is a blog, and they are not reliable sources. Tuxmachines.org is bloggish as well, and does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy as far as I'm aware. The German sources look slightly less inappropriate, but their coverage seems to be the sort that every bit of software could be expected to get. The final source is in Turkish, which I do not understand, so I can't say anything about that. Reyk _YO! 09:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree, of course. Linux, let alone all distros aren't owned/produced by Linux.com; that was just a an on-line publication with that fortuitous name (it ceased functioning as a real magazine circa 2008 when the domain was sold, but Linux is still around). MakeUseOf has editorial staff, and is cited by other reliable source in computing, and even mainstream media WaPo, PC World, Salon, Haaretz, CNBC. It's no different than Lifehacker, which also labels itself a blog. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay, which I don't really agree with. Besides, various Linux distros aren't identical, or there would be no market for more than one of them. I did discard as source distrowatch.com, which is indeed just a database of linux distros. WP:N is the guideline, and those articles I listed satisfy it in my view. Pcap ping 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would agree however to a merge of all distros in Category:Slackware (except Slackware itself) to a single article, perhaps Slackware–derived Linux distributions, where it would be easier to compare them, and write just the specific difference for each one. But this is a matter best discussed at WP:LINUX. Pcap ping 19:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage by third-part sources. Lechatjaune (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 09:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing in any reliable source indicating notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:45, 26 February 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.