Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HackShark Linux Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HackShark_Linux

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 userfied. De728631 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HackShark Linux

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

Contested PROD. The only sources are either primary sources or self-published sources such as forum posts. The article has zero third-party reliable sources that show any notability. Sudo Ghost 23:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit Wikipedia's policies. But, the problem is HackShark Linux is a new distribution. You can see the first release date from http://sourceforge.net/projects/hacksharklinux/files/ . Indeed, it's not much popular as Fedora or Ubuntu or other distros. That's the main reason it's hardly possible to find out any reliable third party sources as its references. However, as per the official download counter at http://sourceforge.net/ we can claim that HackShark Linux is becoming popular, we don't even know the unofficial download numbers from the forums and self-published sources. We know, by time, along with higher versions it will also become a popular distro, and will reviewed by popular third party sources. Now, the question arises here, until it becomes reviewed by any popular third party sources, can't it be a part of Wikipedia? -- Orion Caspar (talk)

Actually it can't, as we have some rules (eg. WP:GNG, WP:NOTADVERTISING) we should obey in order to avoid cluttering up. You may want this article userfied unless you can gather enough sources to move it back to main namespace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is 'userfication' exactly? I have read the article WP:USERFY but I didn't understand it quite well. -- Orion Caspar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Put into your user space: User:Orioncaspar/HackShark Linux. This is explained when you edit a new page. Like Donald Knuth says, "if all else fails, read the instructions". JoshuSasori (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - page creator seems to admit it fails WP:GNG. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - provided sources are blogs, forums, and developer's pages. No coverage in reliable sources, so no notability. Dialectric (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my concept clearance, what exactly do you mean by reliable sources? -- Orion Caspar (talk)

Reliable sources are explained here. Basically things like blogs, personal home pages, (or even wikipedia itself) which anyone can edit aren't considered reliable sources. Please see the links for exact details. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a noticeboard if you have any questions about specific pages, the editors on that page are generally very knowledgeable about that sort of thing and can help give their opinion on any given source if there's any doubt. - Sudo Ghost 02:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Close - the original author of the article seems to have accepted that the subject does not meet WP:GNG. Can we now Delete the article and close this AfD to allow the editor in question to continue work on a future article in his own space? Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: it is apparently evident that no reliable third-party sources are there to demonstrate project's notability as of now. As the article is not subject to tone problems, and there is an editor (Orion Caspar) who is interested in further development of the article, I would prefer moving the article to User:Orioncaspar/HackShark Linux (or even Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HackShark Linux) over deletion, so that once there are reliable sources to support the notability claim, the article with its editing history could be accepted into mainspace via WP:AFC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dimitri for this consideration. Definitely, I'm into the further development of this article. As well, I'll be really glad if other contributors help on it. :-) -- Orion Caspar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 27 September 2012 (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.