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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linux.org.ru[edit]

Linux.org.ru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now here for full debate. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. trialsanderrors 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability claims The article does not fail every criterion of WP:WEB. For example, let's do a google on the unique title of a recent article that I've posted to Linux.org.ru: [1]: [2]. You clearly see that google returns 305 results for a Linux.org.ru article that was posted shortly before the new year -- approximately, that's the number of sites that reprint news from Linux.org.ru. Just some example of who does the reprinting: [3]; and RSS feeds: [4]. Linux.org.ru is a hugely popular web-site, much more popular in Russia than Slashdot.org etc. MureninC 14:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, indeed not. I think I'm the only voter here who reads Russian, and we already have two other votes in keeping the article. Also notice how fast the decision against speedy delete was overturned, and how many people voted to overturn it. MureninC 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to this misinformed, misspelled and discriminative comment from the history tab: «07:13, 5 December 2006 RWR8189 (Talk | contribs) (not only is the forum non-notable, its in Russian)»? First, the site is not simply a forum, unless you call Slashdot a forum, too. Second, a lot of independent site owners integrate RSS-feeds from Linux.org.ru onto their own sites, or otherwise reprint articles from Linux.org.ru, which shows that Linux.org.ru is notable. Third, articles in this wikipedia are not limited to describing resources that have English references. MureninC 00:00, 6 January 2007 (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.