Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leeenux 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. This is on the basis that the delete arguments are policy based while the keep arguments contained a fine selection of classic invalid arguments like WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFF. As for the argument that being a linux distribution should of itself lead to an automatic keep—that would require a consensus that linux distributions are all inherently notable, and no such consensus was pointed to in the discussion.  Spinning Spark  03:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Leeenux Linux

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable linux distribution. This is the only review I can find, and that is not sufficient to pass the general notability guideline. SmartSE (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The page has been edited, and many references were added, with different independent reviews. Spiralciric (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, it is notable, it is ranked 142 of about 600 recognized linux distributions on Distrowatch, you can even find it here []. I am however developer, so I am not suitable for the discussion, but I can help with any question regarding this distribution. So far, the number of downloads exceeded 100,000 through official website +10,000 through Softpedia. Spiralciric (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * While the article is terrible and mainly written by someone with a clear bias, I don't believe it qualifies for deletion under "Non-notable linux distribution".
 * Leenux is not exactly competing with Ubuntu but it is still far more reputable than many of the other distributions listed on Wikipedia, such as RipLinuX. EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That we have other crappy articles isn't a reason to keep non-notable articles. As Spiralciric says, it is only the 142nd most popular linux distro - we probably shouldn't have articles on each one - there are better places like distrowatch.com. SmartSE (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and That we have other crappy articles gives examples of trivial articles but I don't think the Leeenux article
 * is in the same category as those.
 * I don't see why we can't have a Wikipedia article on small Linux distributions. Where do you draw the line? Top 100? Top 10?
 * If it has 100,000 download there must be a fair few users. Many articles about small Linux distributions have been successful.
 * Also I wasn't saying that the article on RipLinuX was trivial or in any other way a bad article.
 * I believe that the Leeenux article can be successful and I will help it to be so. I have already started improving it. Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilKeyboardCat (talk • contribs
 * "Where do you draw the line?" We don't - that's why we need to have sources to determine whether something is notable or not. You can believe all you like, but unless sources exist, we can't have an article. SmartSE (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete other, non-notable and crappy articles should not impinge on the lack of notability for this article. If those who find other non-notable subjects would like to list those articles, it would be appreciated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright then, I nominate RipLinuX. That should not have a Wikipedia article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilKeyboardCat (talk • contribs) 06:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. In the future, feel free to nominate them yourself directly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that these articles actually harm wikipedia, and that they should be removed. Let me state just one more argument why this page should not be deleted: Leeenux Linux is the only surviving Linux distribution that is designed only for netbooks. It is successor of EasyPeasy and eeebuntu, both of which are dying with no new releases in years, and still you can see their pages. Thus in my opinion is that if something should get deleted, it's dead distributions. Spiralciric (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Do Not Delete Why should this be deleted? The onus should be on those erasing community provided information to prove that it is non-noteworthy. Distrowatch is a fine, authoritative source on Linux distributions. Free Software is of special interest to the wikipedia project as a matter of course. It would be irresponsible to delete this article at least until the distribution stops being published.

I will further argue that articles such as this should be transformed into historical records when the distro dies rather than being erased. As someone who has been around since before wikipedia and seen the rise of it and everything2 it is extremely disappointing to see wikipedia going this way. Erasing is bad archival practice. I wish the over zealous OCD energy to improve wikipedia would be re-directed towards the major corporate wikipedia articles that have now become a publicity arm for the subject. It use to be you could count on wikipedia to be a record of all, good and bad, linked on the internet, exposing the truth about a subject. Now you can count on the article about a big Fortune 500 company being completely vetted and "cleaned" up by the company itself. Sure people still try to expose the darker side of a brand but volunteers don't have the time to be as vigilant as paid PR hacks: whatever bad publicity is there is well spun, under the guise of "even-handedness" (aka NPOV) to basically not tell the story clearly anymore. It is not the incomplete stubs of esoteric articles that is ruining wikipedia. It is the slick disinformation that has crept in, by virtue of tenacious non-consensus.

I don't have the time to get into the centre of wikipedia and follow all that politics. Sorry for the rant but it is galling to think of the mis-spent energy aimed at erasing Free Software from the public record while plain PR activity occurs on major articles. Priorities! Rusl (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll try to get round to replying to your points soon, but just in case I don't - the closing admin should be aware that Rusl was canvassed by the developer of the distro. SmartSE (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I forgot to cast my vote earlier. I have realised the error in my ways arguing for this article.
 * Wikipedia is not a free hosting site for information on each and every insignificant Linux distribution that has every been created.


 * If you really want a wiki article on your distro, please do so on a public wikifarm.


 * Yes, the fortune 500s have good articles, because they are notable. If you see biased activity on these articles, fix it!


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so it covers only notable subjects. Leeenux is a small scale Linux distro and does not need an article. EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I have a solution to this argue, so that both sides will be happy. We should merge all this "minor" distributions into one page, or several pages (maybe ubuntu based only, system distributions, gen purpose distros, built from LFS, etc.). What do you all think? Spiralciric (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I do not think merging all "minor" Linux distributions into a single page or category or pages is the best course of action. If a Linux distribution is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia, it should not be on Wikipedia, simple as that; merging non-notable article will not make them more notable. It's like a Greengrocer thinking they have some rotten fruit on the shelves and instead on removing it, merges all the rotten fruit into one area of the stores' shelves. It doesn't work like that.


 * There are many wikifarms out there with a very similar syntax to Wikipedia that could host a database of Linux distributions it would be simple to move them there prior to deletion. Don't get me wrong, being a Linux enthusiast myself I don't want to see these articles lost only moved. EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I take your analogy to be inappropriate, comparing it to rotten fruit. Its like this, most of the people will buy bananas and apples, but on the shelf there is also a mango and papaya. Manager sees that they are not making as much profit as regular fruit, so he wants it removed. However, the store has limited shelf capacity, while Wikipedia is not restricted in this way. Lets say that every distribution has some notability points. Ubuntu has 100, Dragora has 2, Leeenux 3, for example. What I suggested is to add those below 10 points into one article, thus the article would have high notability. Many "minor" linux distributions are quite important, although they are not notable that much. It seams that you aim here for top ten general purpose distributions.

As for the argument of SmartSE for the user Rusl is malicious, I just invited him as an admin to join the discussion, since he had already posted in the talk page in Leeenux. Spiralciric (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps instead of rotten fruit, there obscure distributions could be referred to as obscure fruits such as a Petit Posy or Matt's Wild Cherry. The grocer would not put them on the shelves because while the fruits themselves might be tasty, if not enough people know about them, they would not be worth the putting on the shelves. Similarly on Wikipedia, if there are not enough people who know of a subject, there will not be enough editors to nurture a subject.
 * I agree with you on the subject of the User:Rusl joining the conversion. I am still a new user to Wikipedia but from what I've read on its' policy, there is nothing wrong with ask for a third opinion. This is in fact encouraged to resolve debates. The only thing Rusl has done on the article is remove a banner. However next time ask for the users option not to for a user to "help out".


 * Do Not Delete The article is probably of more utility than the article on [Rotifers] or the article on [Selective Catalytic Reduction]. Fix the existing problems, and expand on it. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There are many taste fruits in this world, but many desire little more than an apple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilKeyboardCat (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete The AFD itself says it as a "linux distribution", this word itself is enough for keeping the article. Notable or Non-Notable should not be necessary with these types of products, even if the product is discontinued in future we would sure need a place in wiki to tell what was the product about and when was it released and the other details, by deleting these types of article we are denying the future members of the knowledge that these products even existed. If necessary the article can be cut short or cleaned up leaving the necessary message alone.P earll's S un TALK 19:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)