Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythbuntu

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. Wizardman 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mythbuntu[edit]

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks secondary sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment invalid reason for nomination. We do not delete articles for lacking secondary sources, only for being unsourcable. Have you looked? It would help the discussion to know, especially considering that you have just previously prodded several dozen Unix distros of various sorts in alphabetical order at the rate of 1 minute each, including, incredibly, Novell Open Enterprise Server. Another editor quite properly removed the tags on the basis that they were indiscriminate. I sincerely hope you are not going to repeat this at AfD. Incidentally, "procedural nomination" does not apply here--we use that word when something is being nominated as a matter of form, for example at the request of an anon, without the nominator having any opinion about whether it is notable. DGG (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a cursory look on google, yes. At the same time, I don't think it's reasonable to expect any editor to examine every ghit for a particular topic. So it boils down to the fact that I believe the subject may be non-notable, but I can't be entirely sure since I'm not an expert on these topics, and I welcome others to try finding a reliable source. I do not, in fact, have an opinion regarding notability -- why do you assume otherwise? I'm just basing these nominations on the fact that I was unable to locate reliable sources and I'm more than happy to vote keep or withdraw the nomination if someone can provide one. Another editor brought up the merit issues with the Novell nomination and I conceded the point (I don't plan to AfD it). That should not become a blanket reprieve for all the other nominations, however. The nominations were done as a batch for my own convenience (they are all linked from a list). The articles were all looked at prior to this. In fact I had posted a request for an expert to decide on nominations at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linux, which received no response after several days, so I went ahead and did it myself. And yes, there might be a few mistakes, but that's why I'm labeling these as procedural noms. I think it's unfortunate that so much of this debate is being based on ideology and a lack of AGF. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

at the very least, it would have helped had you made this clear. But I see that you are trying to judge the notability of technical topics where you are not an expert. I am not one either, and I consequently made a comment, not a keep !vote. The proper procedure for bringing a large number like this is to try a few of the weakest and see, because if they are successfully defended there's no need to waste others time on the rest. I defer judgments on whether to AGF on mass nominations, and leave others to judge if they are disruptive. I do call attention to them. DGG (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the phrase "procedural nomination" from these AfDs. Regardless of whether the phrase is appropriate or not, I would prefer that it not become a point of contention for the discussions. Please look at the articles and judge by merit, that's all I'm saying. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources for anyone who cares to look, like this one: http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mythbuntu, 5th on the Google hits list. It's quite apparent that Ham Pastrami just lies and claims he searched for sources and couldn't find any, while anyone who looks can easily find them. StuRat (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A profile at distrowatch is hardly a reliable source or significant coverage. Content at that site is user-contributed. It's telling that you resort to personal attacks instead of addressing the concerns listed in the nomination. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 19:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm puzzled how the nominator thought this was non-notable considering that there are numerous sources on the first page of Google: distrowatch, phoronix, Wired, and others. While we need to prune junk out of Wikipedia, editors should be trying even harder to improve the good content of Wikipedia. This article, while not perfect, is a good start for something that should be kept.—Mrand ^{Talk • C} 20:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These are all questionable sources. Phoronix is a blog. Distrowatch is user-contributed. The Wired article is published in the site's blog section as well. If people want to lean on these as sources, I won't press the issue. But these are not ideal for meeting WP:N and WP:V, and it shouldn't puzzle anyone who has actually researched the sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seem to be some good sources that discuss this distro specifically, rather than just passing mentions - Mrand pointed out some good ones. Certainly seems to have the potential to be a well-sourced article. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:02, 14 August 2008 (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.