Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNU/Linux naming controversy


 * 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.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

GNU/Linux naming controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This controversy is difficult to write about while taking a NPOV. There are no reliable sources to claim the existence of minority and majority positions without being controversial with other reliable sources. Blackwidowhex (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, former FA, notable controversy, many sources, no arguments given why the perceived problems can't be solved by editing. —Кузьма討論 11:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And that something is "difficult to write about" is a challenge to good writers, not a reason to not write. We would have very few articles if we'd ignore all difficult topics. —Кузьма討論 11:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - A former Featured Article that is well referenced, relatively complete and well written. For an article to be deleted though AFD the case has to be made that Wikipedia should not have an article on this subject, not that it needs improving, is hard to cover accurately, has POV issues or even WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no problem using sources that take one position or the other in the controversy, as long as both sides are clearly presented in the article. From reading the references cited in the article this subject does exist, has been widely discussed in reliable references and is an encyclopedic topic for Wikipedia. No good case has been made here to delete it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Notification of the existence of this deletion discussion has been made at the WikiProjects that support the article: Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linux, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free Software and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing in accordance with AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability is not demonstrated since all of the sources used in this article fail WP:RS. News group posts, web forum posts, articles on self-published websites, etc. are not reliable sources. Just because a subject is discussed on the Internet does not make it notable for our purposes. Nanobear (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The difficulty of writing in an NPOV is not for deletion, but its alternatives. More reliable sources are available, such as this one, this one, this one, and this one that give some attention to the debate.Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, we don't need to state the majority and minority if it is unclear. Just their positions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Crisco 1492. Also the reasons for nomination seem particularly weak ones for a deletion. Diego Moya (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - we don't delete articles because they're "difficult to write about while taking an NPOV", unless someone deleted everything in Category:Politics without telling me. This article is reasonably well written, well sourced with primary sources (but does need some help with secondary sources, which Crisco has made the first step towards above), and as far as I can see doesn't actually have any NPOV issues. I would also dispute the notability claims made by Nanobear. This seems to pass WP:GNG - just because primary sources are used extensively in the article does not mean the secondary sources do not exist. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems to fall squarely into WP:IDONTLIKEIT, given his position of "For every true user that says we want GNU/Linux, there's a 1/2 thug that says no.". Notability has been established with reliable sources.  Some of the sources are not reliable for establishing notability, but that is only an issue when none of the sources establish notability, and that is not the case here. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment My apologies to Wikipedia and to those who may take my comment personally. It clearly was not helpful. I found much anxiety and embarrassment in my lifetime and that moment was one of them. When I said that thug comment, I sensed avoidance by other editors with my question on how to start a discussion for Talk:Linux/Name. I had not retracted the silly comment after getting some help from Welcome editors as I had already thought the damage was done. The future decision on this proposal will have my utmost respect. My views and actions are my own and not of any other person; that is perhaps where I faulted faltered. Blackwidowhex (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Kusma. Difficult to write is not a reason to delete. --Falcorian (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Clear keep Clearly encyclopedic controversy - widely discussed and reported, generally covered rather than pure niche/geekcruft, lasting impact. We are more than capable of describing and characterizing the issue, themes, and stances, without speaking in Wikipedia's voice. "Neutral article is impossible" is a very exceptional claim, almost always one can be, the main exceptions are when the topic itself or all sources are inherently POV. This has coverage in very wide ranging media, including books, academic coverage, legal coverage, and dispassionate third party independent writings in reliable sources. "Notable but hard to write" is not usually a valid AFD reason. I do not agree at all with the nomination reasoning that a neutral article is hard to write, much less that it is so hard as to be almost impossible and require deletion (essentially claiming it's doomed to fail). It just takes care. FT2 (Talk 01:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-sourced spin-out of the Linux article. No valid reason for deletion has been presented. --Cyber cobra (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Difficulty of writing in NPOV is a challenge to the editors, not a reason for deletion. A former Featured Article with links from many other articles needs a stronger reason than this for deletion. --Novusuna (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Close? Seems to be a clear keep. Any uninvolved admins willing (not sure if regular editors are allowed)? Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no rush, it'll be a simple, normal close when it expires in 90 minutes time and someone goes through the expired AfDs. (See also WP:NAC) bou·le·var·dier (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2011 (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.