Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TopologiLinux

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. John254 00:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TopologiLinux[edit]

Blatant advertisment, no notability or references. Message from XENU^{u, t} 16:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Spamish as written. Might be notable - one hit at GoogleScholar, none at GoogleCode. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added the Google Scholar reference (Gacek and Arief 2004, from IEEE Computer) that Ningauble mentions, as well as another (Sharma 2008) from the print-and-online periodical PC Quest - see the article and its talk page for more detail. Gacek and Arief (2004, p.38) selected TopologiLinux as one of nine open-source projects to use as principal examples in an in-depth scholarly study of some subtle problems in the definition of "open source"; Sharma's entire article focuses on TopologiLinux as its principal subject. ~ Neuromath (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: does not seems "Blatant advertisment" to me. It's one of the few projects of this kind, and I think for that reason alone it's inclusion on wikipedia should be considered. (and also keep in mind it is very hard to prova notability of recent technology, especially open-source), and also, according to wikipedia, Wubi (Ubuntu) was inspired by TopologiLinux. SF007 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article needs referencing, to be certain. But I am sure a good hunt about the Net (especially the Linux media that passes WP:RS) can locate something. I'm not eager to rush this one out the door. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:12, 27 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.