Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbuntu

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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Elbuntu

Elbuntu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable, apparently an unreleased Linux distribution. Twinxor t 07:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - 41 ghits. Fails WP:V. MER-C 08:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it? An unreleased Linux Distribution? I do not agree, off the top of my head I recall reading the wiki page about the Enlightenment_(Window_Manager)-as I'm a user of it. Only a small part talks about e16, yet most of the page talks about software which has not been released officially(eg:e17 & EFL apps) and is only available by compiling from source or being lucky enough to have a package built from the code which is considered pre-alpha.

Elbuntu on the other hand is in the alpha stage and is available to the public if they ask for it (That's how I got it). The developers of Elbuntu build the packages of E17 for this distro themselves and refine the source to allow more stability than the official source code alone.

And by the way, if I interpret 'Delete - 41 ghits. Fails' properly, you searched on google for Elbuntu and got 41 hits. That would seem to add some weight to your argument except for the fact that if you had done some more research you would of realised that Elbuntu has actually changed it's name from Ebuntu and if you're concerned about the number of hits this returns, it's 17,300. Tumler 12:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)— Tumler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You'll need to advance a case for keeping based on WP:SOFTWARE and WP:V. MER-C 12:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. To quote the article: "just starting." Come back when it's covered in reliable sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment That article probably will be back anyway (if the project does not fail) - but I don't get why Wikipedia should be so un-welcoming. Valters 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment It's not that we are un-welcoming, but that wikipedia is not a crystalball on things that 'might be'. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 22:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol, so you can't get your head around those 2 words 'just starting', don't worry I'll remove them. While doing so I found that this article has a few other things that haven't been updated to reflect the current state of the Distro, I'll update them now now.

I just read those 2 WP page's about guidelines, what I got from them was that there needs to be a primary source of information and the wikipedia acts as a secondary source. But there is already a primary source of information from the Ubuntu wiki page on Elbuntu. Tumler 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)— Tumler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DELETE To help our new friends: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. per the Afd page.

This software's article needs to have multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, non-biased, third-party sources cited for it to pass the AFD. It currently has only a link to it's own webpage. Now if someone did find sources, one newspaper or magazine article does not make anything 'notable'. Notability standards usually require citing more than one major news source (normally in wikipeida practice, the unwritten rule is three or more sources). Please look at a few of the Wiki guidelines. Wiki is not a Publisher of Original Thought - Specifically - Original inventions: If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move (or software distro), it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day This still fails WP:V since there is no reliable source cited yet. Notability, as a guideline, usually requires three or more major news sources for verification. There is no newspaper mentioning this software, no peer-reviewed journals...nothing. That, by most standards, is not enough for notability.

Blogs and forums are not accepted by wikipedia standards as Reliable Sources.

Primary sources- present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.

Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.

Where are the sources?

For Tumler: Wikipedia can not be a primary or secondary source. It is a tertiary source. The Elbuntu webpage can not be a primary or secondary source either as it is not an independent, reliable, reputable, third-party source.

In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.

And....

..That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article..."

Where are those published works by reputable third-party publications? Again, Blogs and forums do not count as they are self-published. See "What counts as a reputable publication?" and "Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable. Reading those will show that blogs and the discussion forms do not count as Reputable publications nor Reliable Sources.

HERE IS THE KICKER

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it.We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

I think this may end the debate if this is worth an article or not --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 22:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment and as stated before, this distro still fails WP:SOFTWARE. Wikipedia is not a crystalball --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 22:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the above poster (Brian), which made it very clear as to what is to be expected. But to break it down, what this article basically needs is to get Elbuntu listed on Distrowatch and some other reputable news outlet. Tumler 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the thanks and to let everyone know, I am not biased against Elbuntu. I'm playing with the alpha on a test environment at home. Love to see the article stay but I'd vote delete even if it was my mother's article which was unsourced. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --Emx 22:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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.