Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jollix


 * 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 No consensus. Despite a re-list for the purpose of consensus-building, it is clear rough consensus on this article's suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia has not been reached. Arguments have been presented supporting both "delete" and "keep" positions, and at the conclusion of this debate, none significantly emerge as being clearly superior to the other.

As such, I have no option to close with no consensus at the present. If any participant in the discussion wishes to restart a debate in the relatively-near future, I would have no opposition to that; however, from the material presented in this discussion, no clear consensus has emerged. Anthøny 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jollix

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was prodded in August of 2007, prod was removed. Article was re-prodded Jan2008, I removed the second prod per procedure in the deletion policy. Procedural nom, abstaining. Keeper  |   76  22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete: Non-notable distro, orphan article, unreferenced, project appears to be dead. Technobadger (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Keep I added some references to the article, which I think are sufficient. If not keep, then at least merge into List of Linux distributions. (Also, frwiki and dewiki eswiki both have articles on Jollix.) Tim Q. Wells (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:There is an es:Jollix, and a fr:Jollix, but no de:Jollix, which seems odd for a German-language distro. Technobadger (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It was going to be keep until I followed the link the the project website. It doesn't actually exist. Ros0709 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. and Ros0709. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Per nom?" The nominator is neutral. He/she only explained what happened with the prod tag, but did not give any reasons for deletion. And Ros0709's rationale is just quite...weird. It's not notable because it's website is still being designed? Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "It" in my comment was the project, not the website. Ros0709 (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How did this (or this) website show you that it doesn't exist? That is the project website. And according to this, it is active. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Distrowatch page you cite was itself updated in June 2007, but it notes that Jollix's last release was 2004-05-14: Development Release: Jollix 0.3 Beta2.  The other refs cited in the article likewise date from around 2003. Technobadger (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I assumed the website was updated, but where did you get the idea that it was inactive in the first place? I just want to know. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Distrowatch. I then searched for evidence elsewhere that there had been a release since 2004, and could find none. I could also find nothing showing notability according to WP:Notability, and not a single mention of it on German Wikipedia, including in the deletion logs. Please correct me if I'm wrong.  Thanks, Technobadger (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not matter whether or not the German Wikipedia has the article or mentions Jollix. The sources in the article show its notability . Also, Distrowatch says the project is live, and I'm sure they would update it when they needed to. But that still does not matter. It is notable because of the sources. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three of the nine refs cited are from the distro's own site, and can't therefore be considered independent. The remaining six cited are short mentions from 2003 that the distro existed, repeating the distro site's own summary, and offering no evidence of its notability. Are there any independent reviews in the mainstream press or other WP:Reliable sources, as suggested by WP:Notability?
 * More importantly, the project's site now has no files available, no mailing list, and no discussion forum. The project really does appear to have died 4 years ago, and no-one seems to have noticed.  Is there any evidence of activity post-2004? Technobadger (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2008 (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.