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 keep. Sandstein 12:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Christian Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails to show any notability and a bit of time spent searching turns up nothing more than a few blogs and a christian software promotion site, and per some comments on the prior 'group' nomination, I am relisting this and Ichtux seperately. Localzuk^(talk) 12:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Oli Filth 12:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Onnaghar (Talk) 16:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Onnaghar (Talk) 21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Prejudicial Delete. It's Ubuntu, with some of the bible software. For cryin' out loud, that's what apt-get is for! This doesn't make it any different than... Ubuntu! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so prejudicial merge and redirect, but we have a couple o0f options. I'm leaning toward what is suggested on the page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, with prejudice. =^_^= Per the changes to the article, the notability requirements have, indeed, been met. We have a winner here, good job. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a page Religiously Orientated Distributions.

a) These (Ubuntu Christian Edition, Ichthux, Ubuntu Muslim Edition, etc) are currently niche distros. They have been reviewed in media that is orienated towards the target religious group.

b) The difference between Linux (religious flavour) and Linux (music flavour) is simply one of what the target audience is. If there is no justification for Linux (religious distribution) because of apt-get, then there is no justification for Linux (music) , Linux (security) etc, becuase apt-get will provide the same functionallity.

c) Ubuntu (or any other "mainstream" Linux distro), is for the general user. Linux (religious flavour) is targeted at non-Linux users within that niche (religious) group.

d) Ubuntu Christian Edition contains software that can not be installed by using apt-get.

e) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pseudo_daoist/Religious_Distros is a draft of what Religiously Orientated Distributions could cover.jonathon 21:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that page, as I see it, is that no notability is shown except a single niche (as in specific to only the religion) publication covering a single derivative distro. This isn't 'random pet project linux distro-pedia', we have to maintain notability.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on that page. I didn't expect the AfD for these to come up before the discussion about whether to merge them into Ubuntu (linux Distribution) had taken place. jonathon

• Note from Ubuntu CE Developer: To say that Ubuntu CE has no notability is absurd. A search for "Ubuntu Christian Edition" in Google yields from 750,000 to 1,000,000 results. Ubuntu CE is currently #27 in the Distrowatch popularity ranking. Linux Format magazine has mentioned Ubuntu CE twice. The U.S. Catholic magazine has featured Ubuntu CE in their "Catholic Tastes" section. The Perspective, an Australian parenting magazine has featured a full article on Ubuntu CE. Ubuntu CE is even listed as a derivative on the official Ubuntu site. I am not sure how notable it needs to be but this appears to be more of an attack on the religious aspect of Ubuntu CE.--Mhancoc7 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, as a Christian, I must admit to taking umbrage at the remark that this is an attack on the religious aspects. Second, you might check WP:GOOGLE for a good reason as to why we don't really consider Google page counts to be reliable - though I did get "about 807,000" when doing the search, for what it's worth. =^_^= See, my thing is this - I run Debian Etch, and I can pretty much get the same effect by 'apt-get install'ing all the packages that come up with the result of 'apt-cache search bible'. Given present circumstances, I'm likely to bend to keep considering the coverage that was pointed out, but given that, QED, anybody can just do this, what makes your distro so special? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, what makes it different is the fact that it comes with software that is difficult for Linux newbies to install. It is also preconfigured for use by a specific group. The fact is Ubuntu CE exists. It has been reviewed online and in magazines. It will continue to grow whether it is allowed to keep its entry here. I think it would be sad if it is removed. It would be a sign of Wikipedia's slant on what should and should not be included. I mean don't you think that maybe you all have forgotten that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Just because there are other ways to create Ubuntu CE does not make Ubuntu CE cease to exist. I am not going to post anymore. I just hope that common sense will prevail. --Mhancoc7 09:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Does not fail notability/verifiability guidelines and is reasonably well-written. Brisvegas 11:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this doesn't fail notability requirements, please can details of its notability be put in the article?? It's all well and good listing random things here, but unless it is made clear in the article I can see it coming up again and again... Localzuk^(talk) 17:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) For those who claim that using apt-get duplicates Ubuntu Christian Edition, explain how to install the following programs that are part of Ubuntu Christian Edition by using apt-get:

• The Word;
• Virtual Rosary;
• e-Sword;

b) Ubuntu Christian Edition preconfigures DansGuardian. It was the first Ubuntu distro to include a preconfigured version.

c) I'll also point out that four other religiously orientated distros were started as a reaction to Ubuntu Christian Edtion. [And that is one of the better reasons to have page Religiously Orientated Distributions', if this & Ichthux are deleted.]jonathon 17:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Rosary is a freely downloadable program that works via Wine. e-Sword the same, after a bit of playing and configuring. By 'The Word' do you mean access to this service?-Localzuk^(talk) 17:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected then, but this is not something that can't be taken care of with a few minor installations. A bash script involving wget(1) comes to mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Word is yet another gratis Bible Study program for Windows. for somebody exprienced in writing, and running shell scripts, installing e-Sword, Virtual Rosary etc might be easy. For somebody who is just being introduced to Linux, forget it. The Linux alternatives for these programs are quite simply not anywhere close to providing the same functionality.[Anyway, my vote is to merge into Religiously Orientated Distributions for the time being.]jonathon 22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think then that one could create the shell script and have it run as part of an apt meta-package - installs the requesite software and makes the adjustments to wine as well. Makes it easy to thusly set up any Debian flavored distro - including Debian itself - to run the software. It can be done, I just don't know how. =^_^= At any rate, this is not the place to discuss dev tactics. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Common sense please: Ubuntu Christian Edition is a cd image that actually exists, can actually be downloaded and actually used to install Linux on a computer with a specific set of features that are of interest to a particular group of users. It exists, people use it. Therefore there are people that are interested in it and may want information on it. Therefore Wikipedia can have a page to provide this information. I vote to keep it.

I see no reason to object to this edition of Linux having an entry unless someone had an objection to Christianity, and in that case they can read other articles. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about Christianity, Islam, Witchcraft and all sorts of things that may be of interest to some and could grossly offend others. It is the readers choice what they read, Wikipedia is here to provide unbiased information, and in general it is extremely good at this, as readers of opposing views make sure both sides of any debate get heard. Censoring out information because someone doesn't like it is completely counter to this purpose.

Although Ubuntu CE may be able to be created by the user from Ubuntu through the shell and by downloading specific packages, a new user could not do this. I could not do this with confidence. How can anyone object to a cd being created that has all of this already done, so the novice can simply install the software and have it just work? Next we will have people objecting to Kubuntu or Xubuntu because they are both available via apt-get after installing Ubuntu. People could even object to downloadable .pdf documents as they could alternatively be downloaded in .txt format and turned it into a .pdf on the users computer using LaTeX. This argument rapidly becomes ridiculous the more you look at it. Some people are interested in Ubuntu CE. If any other reader is not, they do not need to read about it.User:Sjdennis2 11:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Dennis, the problem with this is that mere existence is not a criteria to inclusion. I feel it prudent to note also that we are not censored, either. That said, might I direct your attention to WP:WAX? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Added more External Links: I have added several links to reviews and sites that mention Ubuntu CE. Some of the links are to entries on the Official Ubuntu CE site because the article is only available in hard copy. In these cases the reference info is included. --Mhancoc7 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Christ saves souls, but you, my friend, have saved the article! =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good one! I hope that does help keep the entry. I know it needs some work. I am going to contact the Ubuntu CE Team member in charge of keeping it updated and let them know. Thanks, --Mhancoc7 00:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note that if they do, that would probably be a violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest guideline. Oli Filth 00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So,I can't have someone "in charge" of ensuring that the latest release info makes it into the entry? What about this, Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules ?--Mhancoc7 02:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In this case, I think updating the release information is not a problem. But that's just me. Read up on WP:COI for details. General rule is that it's not wise to write about articles about yourself, but making changes for accuracy, while sometimes frowned upon, is generally not much of a problem. BTW: Oli, please chill, 'k? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If I came across as un-chilled at some point, I apologise. All I intended was to point out a potential guideline violation. Oli Filth 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If we must, merge per jonathon. It has its own, separate CD installation, and it seems to have a substantial following. Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 13:23, 2 August 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.