Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamlinux (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Dreamlinux}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Dreamlinux}})

Delete, Notability not established, no third-party refs, reviews, etc. Yworo (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. There's a link to DistroWatch on the article, but if you want something more it didn't take me too long to find this review on ZDNet: [http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/jamies-mostly-linux-stuff-10006480/dream-linux-35-an-excellent-new-release-10012278/] or this one at Linux Magazine: [http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/A-New-Dream-Dreamlinux-3.5]. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Link to" in external links is not a citation. Distowatch lists all Linux distros and doesn't in itself establish notability. Feel free to integrate the sources you found as references. Yworo (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I believe that "All Linux distros" is a bit strong: anyone can create a Linux distribution ([http://pcplus.techradar.com/content/tutorial-build-your-own-linux-distro]); DistroWatch appears to be selective in what it includes. Whilst it is true this may not have been enough in itself to show evidence of notability, and it was the article creator who was responsible for providing such evidence, I have now highlighted at least two reviews which you said were missing. WP:AFD states: Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist and it didn't seem to difficult for me to find them. I believe they are enough to justify withdrawing the nomination but if you still think not then it's statistically likely there will be more in the 600,000+ hits [http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=DreamLinux&cp=9&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=DreamLinu&pbx=1&fp=1efe96124a2b2cae google] gives. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Nothing reliable showed up on the first page of Google results. I won't withdraw the nomination until the article has been edited such that it is supported by refs. The article has been tagged for needing references since 2007 and for notability for almost a year. Clearly the creators of the article and other Wikipedia users of the OS simply didn't care to do the work. It's not my job either. Yworo (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia policy is that you need to make a a good faith effort to find sources WP:Before, and specifically states that "An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date" WP:NOEFFORT. So, if you want to nominate something for deletion, you are taking on the job of first checking for sources. If you don't want to spend your time doing so, that is fine, but then you should refrain from nominating it. Francis Bond (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Since you are quoting policy, I'm sure you must be aware that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD clearly states "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination." None of the keep !voters in the previous AFD did so; neither have you or RichardOSmith. Rather than lecturing other editors, why not improve the article as suggested? Yworo (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep In addition to the links given above, I have seen several reviews of this online, which is where I expect to find Linux reviews. Francis Bond (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep There are numerous reviews, the Distrowatch citation is not meaningless, there are a few other references. Why the rush to delete it from an encyclopedia? It's still an active distribution, and lots of mentions although many are not within that narrowly constrained arena of "reliable sources". Tkotc (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Not only is there thorough discussion online, this is especially noteworthy in being targeted specifically for people who are comfortable with Macs. While that, in itself, doesn't make it notable, when combined with its existence over several years and versions (moving it ahead of several distros out there) and its reasonable popularity, it is notable. Eauhomme (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

: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.