Talk:Asturix/Archive 1

delete again

See Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Can_I_recreate_an_article_that_was_deleted_in_the_past.3F. The notability has not changed in the last 4 weeks. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't you read? "If an article was deleted because it included no assertion of significance (A7), it may be recreated if you include an explanation of why the subject is important or significant." It's from the link you said. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 19:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

the same, just a paraphrase

Article was already deleted, but was recreated as a paraphrase of the old one with the same bad sources. It's notability has not changed in the last two weeks, since this project is not being developed. Just recreating the article of Asturix OS telling that its actually an association called Asturix is simply pointless.

Note: article was tagged as advert as soon as it was re-created after the deletion, but tag was promptly removed by Richiguada. The ad tag was removed before Richiguada changed anything, and was put there not due to some supposedly ambiguity, but because, guess what, it reads like an ad.

The same lousy software here. It was deleted due to that, and that should happen again. It's still far away from fulfilling WP:N for software, being discontinued and a one-off gig.

Deletion was result of consensus, and status of this distro has not changed. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: first of all, Wikipedia:N#Notability_is_not_temporary, so it's not active, but it STILL deserve a place on Wikipedia. And it's fully noteable because...: (I'm going to use what it says here)

• "Significant coverage": it has been very coveraged. As you see, it has been coveraged by Televisión Española, Linux Magazine, Onda Cero, DistroWatch, La Nueva España, and so on. It makes it REALLY noteable.
• "Reliable": all the sources that are here are full reliable. Most of them are form the official websites of the source.
• "Sources": you only have to see the number of sources...
• "Independent of the subject": I think this article is unbiased. If you don't think the same you can edit it.
• "Presumed": I think this distribution deserve a site on Wikipedia. It's only my opinion but the sources talk for me.

--Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 23:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources were already quotes in the previous deletion. Some are short notices of the existence of the project (which never took off), some are regional, some are blant advertising, some are directly connected to the project owners, and some are about a member of the "developer" team. None can express why the project is notable. It simply didn't cause an impact in an overcrowded niche. It's not only about the talk about something, but its standing. N of software specifically has to be applied to this dead project. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)