Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proxmox Virtual Environment

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 delete. Although there were a number of keep recommendations "article is useful" is not a policy based argument. The only "keep" policy based argument came from Batard0 asserting GNG had been met but with no links to sources (and claiming a blog as a source) Spinning Spark 19:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proxmox Virtual Environment[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable 3rd party references to establish notability of this software. Only provided refs are to developer's sites. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This being increasingly used to manage Virtual environments in linux. There are several articles on it: [1] [2]. So, please don't delete it. This is a very useful article. --Natkeeran (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of recommended ways to manage virtual machines under Linux. Useful, please don't delete. DeeJanus (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)— DeeJanus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: Being listed and described on distrowatch.com, this system really needs a WP article for helping the Linux users to choose Linux distro. OlavN (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There's been significant coverage on a ZDnet blog, which I find to be a reliable source in the context of the subject, and the same for Linuxuser. I'm not entirely impressed by these sources, but I think they are sufficient to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT guidelines. It needs a rewrite for encyclopedic style, but that's outside the scope of a notability discussion. --Batard0 (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same concerns as Dialectric above. No independent secondary sources. Those linked above are entirely promotional. Also, there's no guarantee these blogs weren't written by advocates for this product. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party sources to establish notability of this software. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2012 (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.