Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uruk GNU/Linux Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uruk_GNU/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 no consensus. Probably leaning towards keep who have made a slightly better argument. Jenks24 (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uruk GNU/Linux

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

It does not have notability and reliable sources. Editor-1 (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 07:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found three independent reliable sources giving it significant coverage, which is enough to establish notability: [1] [2] [3]--greenrd (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are not reliable sources. They are blog-like websites. Editor-1 (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Softpedia is not a blog. You can't just judge a website by how it looks, you have to actually do some minimal research! In any case, even websites which are solely blogs, like the other two, are not precluded from being Wikipedia:Reliable sources. They simply have to be subject to editorial oversight and without evidence of being unreliable, which appears to be the case for the other two. Neither of them are personal blogs.--greenrd (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another distro, only coverage in blog-like sites. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NEWSBLOG, blogs are not automatically non-RS. In this case, the three sources listed are ones that have full-time staff, are not personal or group blogs, and have editorial policies. That suggests this (barely) meets WP:GNG. It probably should be added to List of Linux distributions, as well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:56, 16 October 2017 (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.