Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAELinux


 * 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. --Core desat 03:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

CAELinux

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability to come. Chealer 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete absent a show of actual merit in a third party source of substance. FrozenPurpleCube 04:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. (Perhaps it's about time we make a WP:LINUX for the notability of linux versions...)  Redian  (  Talk  )  04:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as this spammy article serves only to promote the product and its promotor. --Gavin Collins 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that that isn't grounds for deletion - verifiability and notability are the main criteria, not whether or not an article may promote an organization or product. Articles with a POV should generally be rewritten, not deleted. Henrik 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Blatant advertising remains a grounds for speedy deletion, and advertising is also mentioned on the deletion policy page. It might be argued that this page offers other content (though I don't think it does), but advertising pages are still a valid grounds for deletion.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, blatant advertising (with no encyclopedic content) is grounds for deletion. I don't really think that is the case in this article though. It is written in a fairly neutral tone and doesn't overly promote CAELinux. It does however lack sources and has questionable notability. Henrik 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, which was that advertising is still a valid grounds to argue for deletion. Since this article doesn't provide any real encyclopedic content, I don't object to arguing for deletion on those grounds.  FrozenPurpleCube 11:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless references can be added. Less than 1k hits on google. Henrik 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable and uncitable. --Android Mouse 21:49, 17 June 2007 (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.