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. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SAM Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not notable. distrocruft. Doesn't claim to be notable. No references show that it is notable. Nothing shows that any significant number of people use it. It does nothing particularly special that makes it unique. It doesn't take much to make a Linux distro and put it on a website and make some forum posts about it. This article has been tagged for cleanup for almost a year with nothing to show for it. Miami33139 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Distrocruft? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe he/she is referring to WP:CRUFT. -Gr0ff (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but what kind of cruft is distrocruft? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of third party sources... can't write a proper encyclopedia article without that. --Movingday29 (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2009 (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.