Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CachyOS

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 redirect‎ to Arch Linux#Derivatives. Disregarding Mr vili's contribution, the sole argument to keep was from Astrophobe - and I find Aoidh's reply compelling. Based on this there is a consensus not to retain the article, so redirecting as suggested per ATD. Daniel (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CachyOS[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability, very minimal third-party sourcing and not much in-depth coverage available. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and WP:NSOFT. I have an essay on why DistroWatch is not a reliable source, and the only source that would be considered third-party in any way is this. MakeUseOf has only been discussed as a reliable source (that I can tell) here, which was not a conclusive discussion either way in terms of reliability, so for the purposes of establishing notability I'm inclined to lean towards "reliable" if only slightly. However, it is a single review, and is the only source that could be considered independent of the subject while also discussing the subject, and each of the applicable notability guidelines requires multiple reliable third-party sources at minimum. - Aoidh (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found the following seemingly independent in-depth coverage in some of the standard outlets for this sort of thing: ZDNet, Linux Insider, Computer Base, and the It's FOSS newsletter. Also something in this website that I know nothing about. At least three of these --- ZDNET, LinuxInsider, and It's FOSS --- are widely used in practice on Wikipedia, and I have no knowledge of any precedent deprecating them. Computerbase also looks like a standard software news site in Germany. They also all look independent and in-depth to me. I think GNG is satisfied with one or two independent reliable sources to spare. - Astrophobe (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these show notability either, there are questions regarding the continued reliability of ZDNet, this is an interview and while they may be used on Wikipedia, ItsFoss and LinuxInsider are indiscriminate in which Linux distributions they will review (evidenced by their reviews being within days of each other, which is commonly an indicator of a distro asking en masse these sites to review them). WP:NSOFT is specific that the mere existence of reviews is not in itself an indication of notability unless the reviews are all reliable sources that give indication that the software is in some way notable, and the reviews don't do that. As far as WP:NCORP, these reviews are all from Linux-specific websites that generally are indiscriminate in which distro they will review (i.e. if you have one and let them know they will review it) so are narrow interest publication as described by WP:PRODUCTREV. I think at most you have one, maybe two of these reviews (ZDNet and MakeUseof) that would meet PRODUCTREV, and two reviews (at best) is not enough. I don't think five of these generic reviews would be enough, even if they were all without question suitable; it needs more than what's here to meet WP:NSOFT or WP:NCORP. - Aoidh (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arch Linux#Derivatives as it's mentioned there. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Astrophobe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr vili (talk • contribs) 09:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. In AFDs, please avoid giving a "per X" vote and join the discussion with your independent assessment of available sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arch Linux § Derivatives as {{r with possibilities}}, or stub and keep. It appears this is notable. ComputerBase is reliable. And while modern ZDNET is due scrutiny after being purchase by Red Ventures, the author of the piece linked above is well-cited in Wikipedia and has been covering Linux for decades, so this piece should be considered reliable. However the article has a fair bit of unabashed promo including a check-mark bullet list of buzz, and so we can't keep this without reducing it to a stub. —siro χ o 08:22, 16 October 2023 (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.