Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NimbleX

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 September 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NimbleX

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks reliable secondary sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although very similar to SLAX NimbleX has one distinguishing feature which makes it notable, capability to build your own installation CD using Web interface. Additionally there are independent reviews at http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/12630 http://www.raiden.net/?cat=2&aid=328 http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/07/24/nimblex-2008-mini-review/ http://www.reviewlinux.com/?m=show&id=10736 http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080728 etc Megaribi (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewlinux "article" is just a link to raiden.net, and raiden.net is a blog owned by the writer. The distrowatch article was contributed by the same person. LinuxLoop and tuxmachines are personal blogs as far as I can tell. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:N and the other notability guidelines and I couldn't find the criteria about "capability to build your own installation CD using Web interface" making something notable. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are very important legit and detailed review on important specialty websites like: Linux.com - http://www.linux.com/feature/118802 tuxmachines.org - http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/12630 desktoplinux.com - http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4640953056.html and many other. It would be a very bad idea to delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.102.139.36 (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC) — 194.102.139.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 14:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted and reopened per DRV here. Jerry previously closed this as "Delete" without a rationale at 03:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC), as can be seen in this diff. Please make new comments below. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Well, now it's reopened, time to tell what I think. I think with the DesktopLinux and Linux.com as well as the DistroWatch sources, this distribution has a small amount of third-party reviews, enough to establish some notability. I think it satisfies WP:V and can satisfy WP:N. I do not think there is any harm in keeping this article. It's a close call and I cannot reach consensus with myself about this and that means for me to default to keep because keeping it will not do any harm. So Why 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, seems to have been the first distro to implement the conpcept of "custom distro on demand", and still seems to be the only one that offers that... And Wikipedia:Notability is not policy SF007 (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even close to notable. No secondary sources present in the article whatsoever. HiDrNick! 17:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient third party sources to write *an* article, although maybe not an FA. Orderinchaos 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I rewrote the article to use more reliable sources (Linux.com and Distrowatch), which did their own in-depth reviews, and did not merely reproduce the soundbites from the NimbleX developer. I hope this alleviates the concern raised above that there are "No secondary sources present in the article whatsoever". VasileGaburici (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both sites are self-published by the developer community, and by their stated charter produce reviews of all announced versions of any Linux/BSD type operating system. So any person who grabs an opensource OS and makes any change at all to it, compiles it and gives it a name, can then have their operating system featured in both ezines straight away. I could make 17 such operating systems before midnight tonight, and be featured in both by next week. These sources can be used to verify content present in the article per WP:V, (as can the developer's own webpage), but can not be used to verify claims of notability, per WP:N, which is the question here.

Specifically here anybody can submit a story for publication. And in the Terms of service, they disclaim all responsibility for accuracy of content, stating that the uploader is respnsible, and that facts are not checked.
And according to the Distrowatch article here on Wikipedia, the information there is not to be deemed reliable and is known to be frequently manipulated by hit-counter fraud by developers and promoters of new OS's to boost their ratings.

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but statements like "I could make 17 such operating systems before midnight tonight, and be featured in both by next week." are nuthin' but trolling. Just because anyone can submit stories to linux.com, it does not mean they'll publish anything. I'll make it easy for you, make one (not 17) linux distro and get a story about it published in linux.com. Let me know when you're done... VasileGaburici (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the only way to create 17 operating systems in one day is just NimbleX. Login to their site, combine the software in different ways, download ISO and repeat it 17 times. Megaribi (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem with using insider publications (eg Inside Retailing for retailers) so long as the source for all claims is acknowledged and people are able to make up their own minds as to whether they trust the source or not. Insider publications are not necessarily biased, in fact, being a new player the bias is more likely to run the other way if it in fact exists, in favour of more established distros. Orderinchaos 06:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, in terms of verifiability, as I also stated above. Such sources do not contribute toward non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability, however. That was the aspect of this discussion in which these sources were presented, and therefore refuted suchly. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 11:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as administrator who previously closed this discussion as such). See my comment above, my closing comment in the history, the WP:ANI discussion, my talk page, and the DRV for more details. No need to regurgitate it all here again. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ duplicate !vote struckthrough by JerryIn addition to my previously mentioned review sites (which were considered as user contributed, although they are unrelated to original authors) there is also coverage in previously printed publications

Serbian magazine Mikro 11/2007

http://www.mikro.co.yu/ser/casopis/tekst.php?id=7273

Keynote lecture of eLiberatica conference http://eliberatica.ro/2007/

http://eliberatica.ro/2007/keynotes/eLiberatica-2007-Bogdan-Radulescu-The-New-Wave-of-Linux-NimbleX.pdf

Linux Magazine issue 88 March 2008, pages 36-39

(those pages are not on web, but you can see them in table of contexts) http://www.linux-magazine.com/w3/issue/88/Build_Your_Own_Distro_Intro.pdf

An example of clearly NPOV article is at http://www.linux.com/feature/144180

dr Samir Ribic Megaribi (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very reliable third party sources like "Linux Magazine", "Linux.com", to mention a few (more were already mentioned by others above) and it seems to have been the first and it is the only one distribution to implement the concept of "custom distro on demand". -- Architengi (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC) — Architengi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.