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. — Jake Wartenberg 23:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SliTaz GNU/Linux[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/SliTaz GNU/Linux

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

The article appears to fail the notability guidelines as it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Searching Google, I found three sources which were remotely reliable ([1], [2], and [3]). However, Linux.com's editorial policy seems to not edit for content and thus would not qualify as a WP:RS since it doesn't have a history of fact checking, and FSM appears to have no editorial policies nor even a list of editors and publishes user submitted content. Thus I was only able to find a single reliable source mentioning SliTaz, hardly qualifies as significant coverage. Books/Scholar/News return 0 hits. Odie5533 (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've added some references from Virtualbox http://virtualbox.wordpress.com/images/slitaz/, UNetbootin http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/, Linux Magazine http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2008/97/SLITAZ. Hopefully these will qualify as reliable sources. Note Distrowatch is also well respected also in the Linux community http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080331#feature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.110.189 (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2009

Reliable sources on Wikipedia generally have very stringent requirements. It almost seems harsh to apply them to free software, since there just plain isn't much info on them even if the application is pretty decent and appears to be widely used. But I do feel some standard for reliability is needed, as this is an encyclopedia. Please read through the reliable sources Wikipedia page, I think you'll find that:

http://virtualbox.wordpress.com/images/slitaz/ is not remotely reliable, and simply offering images of Slitaz is hardly considered coverage
http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/ again, is self published and not reliable, and again they aren't even covering Slitaz, just offering an option for it in their program
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2008/97/SLITAZ is probably reliable, even though I can't speak of their reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and I can't find their editorial policy anywhere
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080331#feature disputable, but I would not consider it reliable

Even if the 1-2 sources you've shown are reliable, it hardly constitutes "significant coverage". --Odie5533 (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Odie5533, I've just read that I can't submit an undelete request through an email, so I'll have to try and state my corner here: Looking at the Mini Linux page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Linux, I notice that the other distros i.e Puppy, Damn Small Linux, Feather Linux, etc. along with SliTaz, all use pretty much the same references. I can't understand what they are doing right and SliTaz is doing wrong? Can you please explain so that we can try and resolve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.111.177 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2009

The distros are all different. Mini linux isn't really related to SliTaz or Puppy or anything like that; they may share similar goals, but they are independent projects. Thus, we must look at each one individually. While you have suggested Puppy, DSL, and Feather, I shall focus on them (please note I am simply a member here at Wikipedia, so what I say must be taken as simple discussion and not some type of decree):

Puppy Linux - has appeared in LinuxJournal multiple times, Linux for Dummies book, Live Linux CDs: building and customizing bootables book, InfoWorld magazine, ASUS Eee PC For Dummies book, and about a dozen other books.
Damn Small Linux - Has a book on Amazon, was included on a custom CD with the Linux Toys II book, has appeared in Linux Journal multiple times, and has lots of other stuff on Google Scholar and Google Books.
Feather Linux - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

It's not so much what the article on SliTaz is doing wrong as it is that the distro itself is not notable by Wikipedia's guidelines (available here). --Odie5533 (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand now; though if you use 'SliTaz' in the [google] boxes, you'll probably get more hits. Thanks for explaining.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.98.85 (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2009

Delete Lacks significant coverage, thus fails notability, per the investigations above Chzz ► 08:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep: Per the Linux Magazine and DistroWatch article. Of course Linux Magazine and DistroWatch is reliable. Joe Chill (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the same as reliability. To exemplify this, there is an article Fox News Channel, but no one in their right mind would consider anything form Fox News Channel reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're going on about. These are reliable sources that are reviews which show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I understand that Wikipedia has its own guidelines, but it seems to me that a free online encyclopedia should have an article for at least every active Linux distro, if not for every distro including the discontinued ones -- i add that because Feather and Damn Small both have been dormant for some time, and both have articles in Wikipedia. I use SliTaz and can assure that it is a very active distro. The repositories are currently being frozen bit by bit so that bugs can be removed for the upcoming version 3.0, scheduled for release in March 2010.Monz (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe WP:N applies here, even to linux distros. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Linux Magazine qualifies as a reliable source. It's 3 page review[4] of Slitaz is significant coverage that exclusively addresses the subject. There are another two sources that address Slitaz in detail [5] [6] from the Los Angeles Daily News. As instructed (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's another source, "Jott outta beta, and SliTaz is the boss" [7] from Network World, which is published by IDG and meets the requirements for being a reliable source with what looks like a particularly large editorial staff in the last three pages here. [8]As instructed (talk) 21:43, 26 October 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.