Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakra GNU/Linux


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Chakra GNU/Linux
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Delete. Insufficient third-party coverage to establish notability. Yet another non-notable Linux distribution. Yworo (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In a related note, the nomination comes as no surprise, considering Yworo already vandalized the article before (eg. by removing secondary sources and later bitching about the lack of secondary sources). –KAMiKAZOW (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to DistroWatch Chakra is more popular than MeeGo, Moblin, OpenBSD, Xubuntu and more recently even more popular than Gentoo and Kubuntu of which all have Wikipedia articles. Additionally the Chakra article is barely older than a week. It is still being extended. Also, the article is also notable because the Chakra project also produces the very popular KDEmod packages for Arch Linux. I was planning to extend the article with info about KDEmod.
 * Keep - I have just added the main Distrowatch profile page to the article. This confirms the notability of this distribution to the standard required at WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did find one source with substantial coverage. (A second that's a bit more reliable would sway my decision.) The Distrowatch entry is a directory listing and the Distrowatch rankings are based on page view counts, so they don't establish popularity in a meaningful sense. --Pnm (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Search for KDEmod. Chakra grew out of KDEmod which has a long history. If the article stays, I'll enhance it with info about KDEmod but I'm not doing this work just to see it deleted. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not start by adding a well-referenced section on KDEmod to Arch Linux? If in the process you find good secondary sources you could create a neutral point-of-view article on KDEmod. With the primary sources you already have for Chakra GNU/Linux and the Jeff Hoogland post, you could include a short section about it. --Pnm (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * KDEmod never was a project by Arch Linux. It is and always has been a 3rd party effort by the community now called Chakra. Adding KDEmod to the Arch article would be plain wrong. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - There isn't even enough reliable source material to determine an article title that is consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. The cited sources call this topic by various names. I don't think we can hang our hat solely on jeffhoogland.blogspot.com and distrowatch.com, even assuming they provided enough reliable source material for the article.  Content source blogs and other websites generally do not need to make the hard inclusion/exclusion decisions of paper print media. Per Pnm, perhaps start by adding a well-referenced section on  to Arch Linux. You can make redirects to that and eventually WP:SPINOUT a topic if needed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources are limited to the product website, a blog and a directory-type listing. This fails WP:N.  Sandstein 


 * STRONG KEEP All you who who say delete are idiots. The deleting by these kind of criteria is the reason I personally stopped donating to WP. --Lucinos (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Lucinos please edit your above comment so it complies with WP:CIVIL. Calling other people who disagree with you "idiots" is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Pnm hits the spot with his evaluation of the sources. There is no sign of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which means the article fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2010 (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.