Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conectiva


 * 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 (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Conectiva

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Too few sources availableto sustain a valid neutral article about a barely notable software company. damiens.rf 03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf  03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf  03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf  03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * delete  It looks more like a Linux distro than a company, but still it's short-lived, some years ago and distinctly lacking evidence of notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 10 years is not that short, and before this AFD nomination in Special:PermaLink/887650564 the article was more explanatory. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd seen that deletion, and although it doesn't change my views on the notability of Conectiva, I did consider either reverting it or !voting as a procedural keep here, as no nominator should be blanking so much of an article as part of the process of nominating it.
 * But still, I don't see this as a notable Linux distro. Many distros existed and that was recorded, but it's not enough to make them notable. Maybe (which your LWN article claims, and I certainly hadn't considered) it's all about who worked for Conectiva, and you could get an article out of that, or at least a section in Mandriva Linux or Mandriva. But otherwise I'm still with the view that it's, "just another Red Hat clone". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * A mere 90 seconds' search brought me to where the aquisition by Mandrake to form Mandriva is documented, as are things like what this is and some of the design decisions that went into it, all blanked by from the article by the nominator immediately before nomination at AFD.  Searching further finds  which confirms the name of the company producing the software and some of the software's distinguishing features.  Clearly zero searching for sources went on by both commenters here so far.  I would certainly have expected M. Dingley to have turned up the likes of .  And that's not even looking for stuff in Portuguese.  Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: It lacks any actual content for which anyone cares. One must apply common sense in these matters. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you say the same about its state before this AfD? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The version you are showing tries to demonstrate the impact of the company on the world around it, but it lacks source. Without source, we will never know the truth of it. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep It is unclear if has explicitly !voted to Keep in this AfD, but his research has revealed two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Both the "Linux Patch Management" book and the lwn.net article provide in-depth information on the company. Topic therefore meets GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 11:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The 'research' mentioned above does not discuss how significant the coverage of the company is in detail, but gives the impression it simply confirms the company was mentioned in passing for its business as usual/press release type activity. Nothing presented so far suggests it would pass WP:NORG. PS. I did, in fact, look at the first book source,, which mentions the company several times, but in passing. The book does not discuss the company, just talks a bit about the product (code) it produced. If this represents the best sources we have, this is very much a failure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think there are sufficient reliable sources to meet the "significant coverage" standard described at Notability (organizations and companies).  Edgeweyes (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.