Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artix Linux

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There appears to be a meta discussion to be had about marginally notable (or not depending on your pov) linux distros that needs to be had before a reliable consensus can be found for this content. Spartaz Humbug! 19:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artix Linux

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Artix Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Its references does not show notability, it is a yet another Arch-based distro. Editor-1 (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Distrowatch may review "a ton of of distros" but Artix is in the top 100 of several hundreds and currently at #40 in the list of ratings. This is a Linux distro and regarding Linux distros, Distrowatch is as good a source as any; we can't expect an article from the NYT. Softpedia, which covers a much broader spectrum of software, including Windows and Android, hosts a review on Artix. Also Artix is not just "another Arch derivative" with a modified logo, it uses fundamentally different init systems and doens't just rebrand Arch. Ckom26 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gloggy: You can only vote once per discussion, you have voted multiple times here. You can comment all you like, but please strike all but one of your votes. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 10:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepduplicate vote - Continuing the aforementioned Softpedia and Slant references: Softpedia ranks quite high at #2205 in Alexa, while Slant also gets a good ranking at #8044. Distrowatch is lower at at #28645, but still it's referenced in virtually every linux distro Wikipedia article and is the industry standard in linux distributions. Having a 5/5 review in Softpedia and the high ground (pardon my awful pun) in Slant should be enough notability for everyone. Ckom26 (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arch Linux. Its Pacman based, and not that different from Arch. I think it would go well as a single sentence/section mention on Arch Linux in the "Derivatives" section, such as "Artix Linux is closely based off of Arch Linux that uses OpenRC, runit or s6 init instead of systemd." The existing sources on the article are bad. The sources found here, not much better. Couple of blogs? A community website? That's not reliable. The arguments for keeping based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are poor, and if anything point out the fact that we are covering waaaayy too many obscure Linux distributions. Sidenote: I'm seeing shenanigans in this AfD, with a lot of SPA comments and Linux defenders who have come out of the proverbial woodwork, closer please look at this one real careful. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 10:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a really valid argument, unless Wikipedia decides to merge all derivative Linux distros back to their 7-8 parents. If you look into the list, you'll see dozens of distros with standing Wikipedia pages whose external links are only pointing to their official websites. The Softpedia source is at least a full review and way better than the one-line FSF endorsement presented at the AfD talk of Parabola, which went undecided.
So, the question is, how many notable sources does an article have to present in order to prevent deletion? At least one apparently, but while Artix meets the criterion, other, longer standing Linux distribution articles seem to get away with just their official websites.
Furthermore, I can discern an unnecessary of tone of mockery and quipping in your comment which is neither neutral nor helpful, while Editor-1, who opened this discussion and is also in favour of deletion, keeps his arguments to the point. Ckom26 (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to miss the point here: it's not the number of votes that counts, it's the arguments they present. AFAIK, the best argument (the Softpedia review) was presented by an unsigned user. Ckom26 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (short term - in WP thats a long term): Ultimately there is a case for a subpage of Arch linux: Arch linux derived distributions which could cover distributions such as this which have significant unique point(s) but would best practive not in their own article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Editor-1: This is a discussion to be had at WikiProject level prior to nominating the first of a bunch of articles at WP:AfD. It doesn't mean every Arch derived distro loses its own article, Manjaro being the article that comes to mind. In the interim this is a keep. I love to drop RL and commitments to clean/improve other articles in my stewardship to do this but I'm not sure I should be rushed to do so (see my talk page). I don't like list of as I the distros may have more that can be covered in a list. In terms of move that may be controversial so it should go through a proposal following a keep. It may be better to create a new article, perhaps asking someone at WikiProject Computing for someone without a negative interest. (Having nom'd this for deletion apparently not going via WikiProject Computing for alternatives and this likely heading for Keep I feel I have some concerns Editor-1 may now hot have the subjects best interests; though quite frankly I think I am broadly in agreement with Editor-1's direction, though I'm a little hesitant to commit to it currently) Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Arch-based Linux distributions is just an indexing article (same applies to List of Gentoo Linux derivatives and Red Hat Enterprise Linux derivatives). As you have already noted, most of distributions listed there also have a dedicated Wikipedia article but most don't contain notable sources. However, merging all separate articles in the derivatives lists would reduce the lists into a chaotic reference and lose valuable information contained in the stand-alone articles. Taking a quick glance at a few distro articles, I find some of them to be well-written and concise while others just advertise their merchandise. My suggestion is not to be overly aggressive and start deleting individual articles, but do a quality control: ring the bell to articles lacking sources, being overly promotive or just being badly-written. Ckom26 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that Softpedia is generally a reliable source, but I don't think it provides significant coverage of the subject such as to help with notability. They provide routine news-like coverage of many software packages like this one and of other types. The German and Spanish language sources did not convince me; they were blog posts on Linux blogs that didn't provide significant coverage and were basically installation instructions or bare bones reviews/support pieces. I maintain that Listicles do not confer notability, and I think I'm starting to believe that comparing one page to another may be wrong (because maybe the other page should be deleted, too; or the comparison is inapt). In sum, I'm not convinced by the sources so far, and the subject doesn't seem notable enough for its own page. Ikjbagl (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more consensus for how sources presented follow Wikipedia guidelines for establishing notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikjbagl: Pro-linux.de in an online internet portal what has been around since 1999 (in contrast, WP since 2001), providing news, articles, workshops tutorials and forums. It's really derogatory and misleading to call it a "blog", unless you were referring only to the spanish-language sources, in which case you should rephrase. Linux-community.de is one of the largest german online magazines with news, articles, IT job market classifieds and more and is operated by COMPUTEC MEDIA GmbH, which also publishes LinuxUser (since at least 2000) and Linux Magazin in Germany. Softpedia needs no introductions, but the Artix review is signed and far from "routine" or templated (after all, it's a review - not news material). Now, the very first 2 WP-approved notable sources in the AfD template are "news" and "newspapers" which is precisely what the 3 aforementioned sources are, unless we've started using newspeak here and sophistry.

  • Keep - Artix Linux is growing quickly and has become the number one non-systemd distro. Even if it uses Arch as its base, it has become its own thing. The init system and process supervision are vital parts of a GNU/Linux or UNIX system that are way more important than the package manager. From this point of view, even Manjaro is closer to Arch. If Manjaro deserves its own article then Artix deserves it at least as much. Liebeskind (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe Artix Linux is notable because it has existed for several years and is ongoing, and generates independent and current discussion on various platforms e.g.: https://unix.stackexchange.com/search?q=%22Artix+Linux%22 https://www.reddit.com/r/artixlinux/ (and if you search on Twitter for "Artix Linux" there is a lot of discussion too but the link was blacklisted when I put it here so I had to delete it.) I expanded the stub and was careful to stick to verifiable factual and historical details, and I'm happy to see the page has continued to grow. Artix Linux is a fully working actively maintained and updated operating system that can be used for home or business purposes, and the Wikipedia article provides a helpful service to readers by informing them about this free software. Artix isn't Arch, the projects are quite distinct, it might be unwise to have them on the same page as occasionally you may see some friendly rivalry. (I added Artix Linux to the list of Arch Linux derivatives on 11th September 2019 to the Arch Linux page and it was deleted 6 days later.) --Ghaatk (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't just your entry that was removed a list with the title "Current derivatives with own articles include " was removed. Your edits on the List of derivatives are still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejose1 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The only independent sources privided in the references are softpedia and Distrowatch. Just two independent sources are quite low for a wikipedia artcile. Out of the two Distrowatch even though less popular than Softpedia provides better and more comprehensive coverage of the topic that it deals with ie Linux distributions. Softpedia is like the 'Daily Mail of softwares'. It's comment on Atrix is neither complete nor comprehensive. The DistroWatch review however provides more coverage. The article in german site pro-linux.de is more of a news story than a significant mention. linux-community.de provides it significant coverage and it is very critical of the version it reviewed. Distrowatch gives it a favourable review. The two spanish websites not referenced in the article but referenced in this discussion, similarly only give it a news story like treatment. One of them is a blog as well. The linked articles are the only significant mention of the OS on the respective websites. These references are old as well. In the software world, where things are in constant flux, the references being old and there being no further mentions shows a lack of notability. The article is not neutral as it selectively includes the overtly positive insignificant mention from softpedia and only the positive part from Distrowatch. As it stands Artix linux is a niche operating system that does not use systemd. It does have a good community behind it. It's not insignificant but not sigificant enough for lack of reliable sources for a Wikipedia article.That said, it could gain popularity in the future and thus significant coverage.It can have a dedicated article then. I agree with @CaptainEek: that it is better to be merged into Arch with proper mention of its differences, mainly the absence of systemd which technically is notable but nit unique. Joejose1 (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artix_Linux&oldid=956516459"