Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Fe Linux

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Fe Linux

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

contested prod, never became notable, now discontinued. Yworo (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (alternatively - merge wherever appropriate with a redirect). IMHO notable enough to say that if somebody searches for Santa Fe Linux in Wikipedia, s/he should get at least some information about it. A few 3rd-party links to help establish notability: http://www.amazon.com/Santa-Linux-Desktop-Operating-System/dp/B00065E5RI, http://rbytes.net/linux/santa-fe-linux-review/ . And BTW, I don't really understand how the fact that it is discontinued can be relevant to notability per WP:NTEMP. retracted, see separate proposal below Ipsign (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Amazon one imply that it has been sold via Amazon at some point? If it does, it would be some argument for its notability. Ipsign (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being sold by Amazon is not evidence of notability. Pretty much anyone can get a product listed on Amazon, you just have to agree to supply it in sufficient quantities at a sufficient discount. Now, if it was available on the shelf at Barnes & Noble or Borders, that might be a reasonable argument for notability, several Linux distributions have been available in bookstores like that. An article about it in a print Linux magazine would establish notability. Or a few pages in a book about Linux. The notability policy is explicit: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is required to establish notability. Yworo (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge all such borderline-notable Linux distributions (including Santa Fe and currently AfD'd SLAMPP) into new page Minor Linux distributions, making this new page somewhat similar to pages like List of minor characters in the Matrix series - a list of entities which don't really merit their own article, but are notable enough to be mentioned in the context of another article. Ipsign (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge Merging is inappropriate because there is no upper bound for the length of such a list. In the case of a minor characters list, we know that only canonical characters which the writers actually wrote about will be included. But anyone can make a new Linux distribution. At some point, such information becomes contrary to our goals. Eventually, such a list could have sourcing concerns as well. --N Y Kevin @265, i.e. 05:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For borderline notable distributions we should create sublists of List of Linux distributions which can have a short section for each. But in this case there is no evidence of notability. Hans Adler 06:53, 4 November 2010 (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.