Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AndLinux (3rd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AndLinux_(3rd_nomination)

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. ✗plicit 14:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AndLinux

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Bafflingly contested prod. Rationale is exactly the same as when this was deleted in its original AfD (trivial offshoot of coLinux with no independent notabilitu), except that the project has now been dead for over a decade, and thus even the potential for future notability is gone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thumperward as per WP:PROD PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD. Even if I didn't contest the PROD, the deletion would still be denied at the end of the 7 day period as an admin is not allowed to delete an article via PROD that has already been deleted via PROD or AfD before - it has in fact had a full AfD discussion before so is ineligible. This is procedure. I don't actually have an opinion on the notability of this subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have created the article. I don't know what is the practice in these cases, but in my view it could become a section of CoLinux. --CristianCantoro (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A merge might be appropriate if there were anything here notable enough to consider including in the target, but in the ~15 years that this article has existed in some form it's never had so much as a single reliable secondary source. Not every project registered on SourceForge warrants includion here, even in passing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to look notable enough to have its own article. The project also seems virtually dead/abandoned. {WikiLinuz} :: {talk} 🍁 03:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would not be opposed to a merge into coLinux, but hard to find anything that really should be merged. Lkb335 (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2022 (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.