Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementary (software project) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elementary_(software_project)

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. The consensus seems to be that there is only one reliable source GNG requires more then 1. This is clearly borderline so I'll specificlly allow recreation if n additional source is found. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary (software project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article has promotional character, and much of its content merely promotes the organization and its applications: “A unique aspect of elementary OS is it's dedication to native GTK+ applications”.

It also has subjective phrases, based on feelings: “[...] therefore the OS is perceived to be much faster than Ubuntu upon which it's built”, as well as a list of applications created by the group (WP:NOTDIR 8) and future apps (WP:SPECULATION 5).

The “influence on Open Source” indeed it is? They just created a popular icon theme and created hype! The tone of the article’s text just disturbs me, it’s not appropiate for the encyclopedia, seems to rely on that used in OMG!Ubuntu. —Fitoschido ^[shout] \\ 27 June, 2011 [02:14] 02:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is free open source software (an OS actually) so there is no commercial interest behind this article. It's also actively edited and well referenced. If the tone disturbs you, edit it but don't delete :-) DeVerm (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Just because there is no commercial interest doesn't mean it still can't be promotional. See #5 of WP: NOTPROMOTION. --I Jethrobot (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a fair amount of free software sells support contracts, especially Linux distros. Just because the software is free is no entitlement to include it in Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are problems with the article but the subject is notable. It is notable enough to get a rather critical review in Linux User, a printed Linux magazine in the UK, and a few independent Linux blogs. The tone and subjective phrasing can be fixed by clicking the "edit" button and rewriting the article. As for the fact that the project originated as an icon theme–so? Flickr originated as a bizarre online game, Java started as a language to write embedded systems and Microsoft started to sell BASIC. What things go on to become aren't defined by their origins. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References originate from multiple places, all of which are unreliable secondary sources and do not show notability:

• OMGubuntu is a blog. Although it does focus exclusively on Ubuntu content, it is not a reliable third-party source of reporting.
• Launchpad is a place where registered users can upload content and other users can report bugs. It shows that Elementary software exists, but it is user-generated content not a reliable third-party source for notability.
• DeviantArt was used to provide screenshots of software. Again, not usable for notability.
• Elementary's own website, and other wikis, because they are user-generated content.
• Tech Drive-in which gives some details about the software and is a how-to guide for installation. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. --I Jethrobot (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Besides the 700 word article in linuxuser.co.uk is there another independent in-depth coverage of this? Major Linux distributions tend to generate a lot of press: books, reviews for every release, etc. A single article is rather meager coverage in this field. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackbuntu. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2011 (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.