Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux From Scratch


 * 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   speedy keep. WP:SK1 - withdrawn by nominator with no opposing !votes. (As a note, can people please say "keep" instead of "strong oppose"? The latter borks the AfD Closure Stats tool.) The Bushranger One ping only 15:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Linux From Scratch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The Linux From Scratch article relies on primary sources entirely, so no WP:RS establishes the articles notability, see WP:N, and so this article violates the WP:GNG. AadaamS (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator - see comments by User:Guy Macon and WP:SK (Speedy Keep #1). Also the overwhelming consesus is to keep this article. AadaamS (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. WP:GNG doesn't say what you think it says. It says that and article should be deleted if it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In cases where the topic has received significant coverage but doen't cite them, the proper response is to add them or at least tag it so others will add them. LFS has a book about it on Wikibooks and on Amazon, a review of said book at pactpub. an article about it in maximum PC and another article in LWN. That took me about two minutes... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I tagged the article for lacking secondary sources about 24 hours before nominating it for deletion, see Linux From Scratch: Revision history. Should I have waited longer? If it only took 2 minutes I'm surprised that nobody bothered to add those references to the article already. I too googled "Linux From Scratch" and as I only found trade magazines I nominated it in the belief that reviews in trade mags, although reliable, are not enough to prove notability. AadaamS (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * comment – I think you should have waited a little longer :-), but its really hard to find refereces, even for trivial sentence. But Im not a friend of the search engines anymore. Btw. the backlog for Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability is 58,615.... Christian75 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * comment I have other articles that I have tagged for notability and they have been like that for months and nobody does anything about it. The response I get every time is "I have multiple sources to show this article is notable and I have the time to stop the article from being deleted but I don't have the time to improve the article". It's bewildering that people who care about keeping an article and take hours to argue about why it shouldn't be deleted don't care at all about spending 5 minutes to improve its quality as long as it stays undeleted. Still I take your hint, 58 000 articles points to a quality problem in Wikipedia that I have no chance at fixing. AadaamS (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You do not have the right give orders to other editors concerning which of those 58,000 articles they work on first. In the time you have spent arguing this, you could have fixed the article, using the references provided to you on this talk page. WP:SOFIXIT. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's get back to the subject of this discussion, whether to keep this article. The consensus is clearly yes. So I will withdraw this AfD. AadaamS (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. Apologies if I haven't followed the proper guidelines for posting in this deletion discussion. I don't edit articles often, but this is important. The article may need more sources, but it definitely doesn't deserve to be deleted. Linux from Scratch is very well known in the Linux community, and installing it is something of a right of passage. The reason it may not have received many reviews is explained well in Season 20, Episode 5 of the Linux Action Show. Bryan Lunduke says, "It's very difficult to review a distribution like [Arch Linux]. It's kind of like reviewing Linux from Scratch. You can't really review that because it's just Linux, and it's just whatever it is at that moment." Lunduke is saying here that most distributions of Linux are defined by their release cycle. It makes sense to review Ubuntu 13.04 or Debian 6, because they're well-defined distributions released at a particular time. In contrast, distributions such as Arch Linux, Gentoo, and Linux from Scratch are harder to review, because they have no release cycle. However, that in no way diminishes their importance, and Linux from Scratch's page no more deserves to be deleted than the pages for Arch or Gentoo, neither of which have been flagged for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letshaveanadventure (talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * comment Yes the article needs more sources and if you have them, please add them to the article to improve its quality. Keeping poor quality articles does nothing for the accuracy of this encyclopedia. AadaamS (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. "Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * comment as someone pointed out below, the article was started in 2003 and it it is highly unlikely this article will ever be cleaned up if 10 years is not enough time to do so. Although you are correct that poor quality is no argument for deletion, a lack of notability is and in this case when I wrote quality I meant "this article lacking even one WP:RS", there are indeed different varieties of quality issues but notability is one that cannot and should not be ignored. AadaamS (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's notability guidelines don't say what you think they say. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is about a book, linux distribution and a website. Sources include:
 * Building Embedded Linux Systems, pg. 194
 * Linux Appliance Design: A Hands-on Guide to Building Linux Appliances pg. 342
 * Linux headless with PC Engines ALIX pg. 41
 * There are dozens more like this on Google Books. Well known, old and established Linux distribution that has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * comment Feel free to add these sources to the article, that will improve its quality and avoid future AfD. AadaamS (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 15.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 14:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose I concur with all those above in opposition and if for no other reason than it seems quite late to propose for an article begun March 2003. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * comment there's no finite prescription time. I see it the other way around, if the article is no better than this after 10 years I don't see why it should be kept. Meanwhile editors have found several WP:RS but have yet to add them to the article. AadaamS (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to draw your attention to Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, which says:
 * Examples [of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: ... Delete. It's not referenced properly. ... In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion.
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out these sections in the guidelines. AadaamS (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2013 (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.