Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALinux


 * 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. looks just short Spartaz Humbug! 21:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

ALinux

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable OS, seems to be discontinued, no significant reliable coverage. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Weak Keep : The article isn't especially good or useful, and probably results from the confusing Wikipedia policy that entries in a list must nearly always link to an article (as in PROSE ). In some of the distributions, like Kogaionon, the editor of the list simply linked to the notable thing the distribution was named for -- which is a wholly improper result, but the only real response to what seems to be the policy. Here, this article is linked from List of Linux distributions, and without it, the list will be incomplete for no good reason. Perhaps someone with a clearer grasp of the policy can explain how this apparent conflict is resolved.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete: Seems to be (relatively) recently discontinued, but certainly isn't notable. This was all I found on it. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 16:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources.  Yes, it's possible that a stub was created just so that it could be added to a list of Linux distributions.  However, we are under no obligation to keep these kinds of articles.  We're not a directory listing or indiscriminate collection of information.  Articles must satisfy our inclusion criteria.  There are other places on the Internet that can and do catalog every single Linux distribution, such as DistroWatch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are some sources, especially if you search using the old name ("Peanut Linux").  aLinux distro 2005-2015 (during which it had to compete with Puppy Linux), fka Peanut Linux distro 1996-2005 (during which it did not); at various points aLinux/Peanut was a debian derivative and/or a slackware derivatve.  Primary person responsible was Jay Klepacs (of Canada).  This was one of the lightweight-distros-yet-full-featured-distros, a bit heavier than Puppy Linux but about the same as Vector Linux (and of course considerably heavier than Damn Small Linux and Tiny Core Linux and other uber-tiny-distros), but often included in the same category by the press as them, since the project-goals were similar.
 * Besides the more-general computer/IT trade press above, there are of course some Linux-specific press-cites.
 * Besides the more-general computer/IT trade press above, there are of course some Linux-specific press-cites.
 * Besides the more-general computer/IT trade press above, there are of course some Linux-specific press-cites.
 * Besides the more-general computer/IT trade press above, there are of course some Linux-specific press-cites.
 * Besides the more-general computer/IT trade press above, there are of course some Linux-specific press-cites.








 * There is probably sufficient depth of coverage in the Linux-specific sources to write a start-class article, but I'm not sure there is enough generic-IT trade-press coverage to pass WP:GNG. Wiki-tradition is for FLOSS projects to get a bit of a break in terms of what counts as WP:RS (see e.g. WP:NSOFT essay), but methinks that tends to be more applicable for *active* projects that the readership might actually find useful to them in real life.  As a historical project, WP:NOTTEMPORARY applies of course, but it's borderline whether we have enough sources to properly write up an article about this defunct project/product.
 * It is possible offline sources from the late 1990s exist, if somebody has access to glossy-print-computer-magazines from that era. p.s. For the younger readership, there was this thing back in the day, called "64 megabytes of RAM" which was quite an impressive thing... you may be more familiar with "gigs" nowadays, which are vaguely related.  ;-)        75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The CNET article looks good, but the others are trivial mentions. The entire news article doesn't have to be about this topic, but we need more than a confirmation that it exists.  This would include single sentence mentions, top ten lists, database entries, etc.  It's useful to have an exhaustive list of every open source project that has ever existed, yes, but that's an argument to avoid.  Though it's more commonly associated with fandom, Wikia is a better place for exhaustive coverage of non-notable topics.  Or, like I said before, DistroWatch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.