Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lintel (Linux)

:{{la|Lintel (Linux)}} ([{{fullurl:Lintel (Linux)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lintel (Linux)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

I'm placing this up for nomination for AfD's secondary reasons, to force some discussion. I do believe in it's deletion but unfortunately with such little activity there was no chance of debate on it's talk page. While i'd love this term to see widespread use, the article as it stands is more of an attempt to bring about that notability than to represent it. There are no sources and I've been unable to find any non-trivial ones, or mentions that don't source back to wikipedia. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral FaceCook (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wintel other than the fact it is commercially expedient and that one can coin a word, the term is not really significant, as majority of the Linux applications can be ported to non-Intel architectures without much trouble, in fact majority of those applications can be ported to non-Linux Unices without much trouble. --Voidvector (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2008 (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.