Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generations 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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Generations linux

 * Delete. This looks a lot like a product promotion from a non-noteable company. Note that even the creator name and company name are even the same.  See also the newly created Mauro DePalma article.  Rklawton 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Verifiable and vanity.  Delete as WP:VANITY.  Slowmover 18:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this article goes, so should SLAX and Puppy Linux; I don't see why they merit a page and Generations doesn't. ( A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 18:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It seemingly has to be pointed out over and over that that argument is spurious. If those articles don't meet our guidelines for inclusion then nominate them for deletion too. --kingboyk 07:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's my experience that spurious or not, some articles are favoured over others for no particular reason. How else is a new user to decide what to post if the rules are applied to some articles but not to others of the same type? ( A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 10:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * do not byte newcomers. Sorry if the articles come accross as self-promoting or as vanity. I am a person, not a company! And Generations Linux is an Open source software Linux binary distribution. I would understand more the deletion of the personal page, which perhaps belongs as User:Softcraft? Thanks. Softcraft 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember the deletion process is not automatic . . . if there is something unique about your distribution, you are free to continue editing it as the arbitration goes on. ( A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless there's clarification of some factor making this specific Linux flavor uniquely important and encyclopedic. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am working on the wiki page(s) as time permits; just added a little bit more information. Provided the entry survives, it will become clear why this distribution rocks! Softcraft 23:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyone is watching. ( A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * With over 300 distributions out there, some reason why this distribution is notable is needed to justify the article. Asserting that it is a great distribution won't do it, take a look at the notability guidelines. If it was used in some other, more notable project, that might be an argument. If it was reviewed more than once in magazines with wide distributions, or was the subject of some publicity, that might be an argument. Failing that, I'd rather see the article Userify-ed than deleted, to allow for some time for that info to be developed. + +Lar: t/c 06:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Lar. --kingboyk 07:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Should it be kept, *L*inux should be capitalised? --kingboyk 07:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - I dont find anything wrong with the article... Jayant, 17 Years, India • contribs 19:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep, I also see no reason to delete it. Give it some time, will ya? Snargle 02:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Userify, as per Lar &mdash;vedant (talk &bull; contribs) 09:21, 15 March 2006 (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.