Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux for PlayStation 2

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. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linux for PlayStation 2[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)

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I found SIGCOV in PSM magazine, Linux Voice magazine and Official AUS PlayStation magazine as well as a New York Times article about how scientists made a PS2-based supercomputer, which I believe utilized the Linux for PS2 adapter kit. It also got a Eurogamer article and WIRED article among other things. The argument that there are no independent sources is totally incorrect and fails WP:CSK#3. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been unmaintained for a long time. Could you, please, add those references to the article, so other editors can validate those references? Mdggdj (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a more citations needed template tag. The article may be poor but the PlayStation feature is probably relevant or at least possible to merge into PS2 article. IgelRM (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the responsibility of AfD participants to fix the article to make it notable. See WP:NOEFFORT. All that has to be proven is that the article can be improved and is also not immediately WP:NOT, which it isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the above, a quick search online shows quite a few independent sources. GBooks alone for example has significant coverage in books on topics like computer science, political science, and a Spanish Programación para PlayStation 2 for Dummies book. Notability requires the existence of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not that they be in the article at the time of nomination. - Aoidh (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feels like the nominator did not perform WP:BEFORE. Sufficient sources have already been presented. AFD is not cleanup. -- ferret (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very threadbare nom with the nom actively removing content instead of trying to find further sources (which I've reverted; don't do this before the end of the nomination, Mdggdj.). Nate • (chatter) 20:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The research done by zxcvbnm proves that the article is notable and can meet WP:THREE if and when the sources are inserted in the article. The article does meet WP:GNG and as opposed to what IgelRM has stated saying that the article could be merged into the PlayStation 2 article, I feel the article requires it's mainspace and does not need to be merged. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lionel Cristiano^? 19:10, 26 March 2024 (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.