Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakra (operating system)


 * 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. Outside of the nominator, there are no calls for the article's deletion. The consideration of the article's notability by those who joined the discussion offers an affirmation of the article's notability, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Any perceived shortcoming can be addressed with editorial input and referencing; removing the article from the website appears to be an extreme solution. A non-admin disclosure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Chakra (operating system)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Discussion at the talk page has highlighted the lack of notability; the few reliable sources that exist are brief reviews on websites that review any and every distro that requests it; this doesn't show notability. Having an entry on DistroWatch doesn't show notability because you can simply buy your way into DistroWatch, and the rankings are based on pageviews and does not attribute towards notability. This article's subject fails WP:GNG and comes nowhere close to meeting WP:NSOFT. Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Chakra (operating system) was already reviewed for notability in a previous AfD discussion (21 October 2011). The result of the discussion was keep. Kevjonesin (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Editors involved in current talk-page discussion — other than Aoidh — have expressed the opinion that the article is notable and/or that notable reliable references exist. Kevjonesin (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your note is unnecessary, as the previous AfD is already linked at the right, and your assertion that it was "already reviewed for notability" is flat-out wrong. Poor assertions from the article's creator KAMiKAZOW does not "review notability"; and an article being kept at AfD does not mean an article is notable, especially an AfD from years ago; previous AfDs do not preclude the question of notability, which needs to be established; citing a previous AfD with poor reasoning from 2011 does not negate that. - Aoidh (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep.  What Aoidh “forgot” to mention is that the article in question also covers KDEmod which in itself was also very popular before the project renamed itself to Chakra and turned Arch+KDEmod into a stand-alone distribution. Publications such as The H also found Chakra notable enough to report on it (and no, The H does not cover every distro under the sun).
 * The claim that Chakra bought popularity is a libelous claim without anything to back it up. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, if you're going to claim that something is "libelous", it would help if you would actually read what you're citing; nobody came anywhere close to claiming that "Chakra bought popularity". Secondly, the KDEmod bit still doesn't make this subject somehow notable without sources showing as much.  The H's brief reviews (and yes, there are countless) do not show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I added the template with the previous AFD because it wasn't included with the original nomination. Cheers, Stalwart 111  05:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability establised by, and . ~KvnG 03:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A few brief reviews do not establish notability, as evidenced by consensus at other AfDs whose articles only had such reviews. They are fine for reliable sources, but not all reliable sources show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting there is not significant coverage in these articles. I don't know how you can make such a claim. The articles are directly about Chakra. There's not a requirement that they be feature articles or of a certain length. What's required is that a reliable source found the topic worthy of writing about. What happened at another AfD is not of direct concern here and I can't tell what sources were examined in that AfD because the comments are terse and the article has been deleted. ~KvnG 14:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I disagree. - Aoidh (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Linux User and LinuxInsider are both established magazines which have been around for about 15 years and which have a reputation for editorial oversight. The fact that each of them dedicated a review to Chakra is (barely) enough to establish its notability.  (I don't understand why User:Aoidh dismisses them as "brief"; they're just as long as most software, book, film, and theatre reviews in any other reliable periodical.)  The other sources mentioned here and in the article are not reliable: DistroWatch lists anything and everything, taking OS descriptions from user-submitted content with little or no editorial oversight; Muktware, despite advertising itself as an "online magazine", is too new and obscure to have developed a reputation as anything other than a one-man blog; IIRC all the other references in the article are either to primary sources or to personal blogs. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

* NSOFT It is all of the above factors taken together, collectively, which lead me to endorse a Strong Keep.
 * Strong Keep — Indications of notability:
 * Chakra has been a featured topic on Jupiter Broadcasting's 'The Linux Action Show'. Note: LAS is not a 'vlog' but rather an internationally viewed program with major commercial sponsors (like GoDaddy and Ting)...
 * http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/13308/arch-made-easy-las-s19e03/
 * jupiterbroadcasting.com site metrics (42,693 monthly visits):
 * http://urlm.co/www.jupiterbroadcasting.com
 * While merely being listed on DistroWatch may not be considered noteworthy, perhaps Chakra's ranking in the top 10–20% over the last year might be?
 * http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity
 * Chakra on LinuxInsider
 * http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/77685.html
 * A bit about LinuxInsider:
 * http://www.linkedin.com/company/ect-news-network/linuxinsider-1547323/product
 * Chakra on LinuxUser & Developer:
 * http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/reviews/chakra-linux-review-kde-and-arch-make-for-a-winning-combination
 * About Linux User & Developer:
 * http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/about
 * Chakra on LinuxBSDos.com:
 * http://www.linuxbsdos.com/2013/02/19/chakra-2013-02-benz-review/
 * About LinuxBSDos.com:
 * http://www.linuxbsdos.com/about/
 * LinuxBSDos.com site metrics (75,304 monthly visits):
 * http://urlm.co/www.linuxbsdos.com
 * Chakra on Muktware:
 * http://www.muktware.com/articles/3165/chakra-review-arch-fork-mortals
 * About Muktware:
 * http://www.muktware.com/4647/about-us
 * Muktware site metrics (64,402 monthly visits):
 * http://urlm.co/www.muktware.com
 * That Chakra gets referred to multiple times on StackExchange seems to indicate that the distro is notable within the Linux/Computer tech community:
 * About StackExchange:
 * http://stackexchange.com/about
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_Exchange_Network
 * Here's one of the many reviews found using Google Search. InfinitelyGalactic's youtube channel—which focuses on reviewing Linux distros—has a review of Chakra which has received—as of today—21,848 views:
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmbjx1Nz8Bc#t=60
 * While any one Linux/tech blog or youtube channel may not by itself establish notability, I think the fact that many such make mention of Chakra deserves considerationy when viewed collectively. In fact, I would say that if many people are feeling a need to make mention of something, then that 'something' is by definition notable (at least in a de facto sense).
 * "Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: ...The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field... ...The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews..."
 * NSOFT
 * "Common sense and an awareness of historical context should be used in determining whether coverage in sources found for software is in fact reliable and significant... ...It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software..."
 * NSOFT
 * "As with other essays and guidelines, this article is not intended to consider all circumstances. If in doubt, remember that rules are principles intended to guide decisions and that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy..."
 * [Yes, obviously I'm cherry-picking the aspects I prefer to emphasize, but please note that I'm only able to do so because they exist.]

--Kevjonesin (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR aside, which source are you claiming suggests that this subject is "significant in its particular field"? - Aoidh (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your question suggests you probably missed the "any one" part of the criteria. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He omitted all the other criteria but purposefully included that one, which suggests that he believes it meets that criteria, so no, I did not miss that.  - Aoidh (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, given its presence in a number of WP:RS. I'll add one more to the list: MuyLinux (a very big Linux site in Spanish) Regards. Gaba  (talk)  22:40, 26 September 2013 (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.