Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PLD Linux Distribution


 * 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. Keilana | Parlez ici 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PLD Linux Distribution

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Since the article quotes only primary sources (same for all foreign-language versions), it seems to fail WP:N. The article survived a mass nomination in March, but the discussion did not hint at any secondary sources, nor were any added to the article since then. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to fail WP:N. Google finds various lists of Linux distributions where it is mentioned, but no independent review. Google news finds nothing. So in the end, notability as per our guidelines is doubtful. --Minimaki (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Additionally, appears to be neither original/innovative nor popular.--Chealer (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Stop the insanity! Article references a well known linux distro package with historical value, a strong user base and an impressive search engine presence (DMOZ, MSN, Yahoo, Google, etc etc). While I don't have a definitive reference handy to prove notability beyond any question, I think it's a safe assumption that this software has been reviewed more than once in published linux related material. The top US google search results alone while not authoritative do show that this particular distro is the center of much discussion. And DMOZ has it's own subdirectory for PLD related sites. The original debate seems to present fair and accurate reasoning to keep the article and WP:N states "Notability is not temporary". Regardless, finding references is likely a simple matter of going to the library and doing relatively easy leg work in the computer related periodicals. Using only Google results (and then limiting it even further to the US .com server) to define notability seems very restrictive. To use the same measure, a query for "PLD" on the polish Google ( http://www.google.pl/search?q=PLD ) yields pld-linux.org as the top result with an authority hub listing (notice the full site map). It would be more productive to request references on the discussion page than dragging this article through another AfD. I'm sure they're not having this issue over at http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLD_Linux_Distribution where it's also listed as one of the primary linux packages. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The warning tag has been on the article since last May, that's quite a bit of time for requesting sources; none have been found. If you have some, please add them. Pld-linux.org is a primary source, which does not confer notability. Search engine hit counts do neither. For "insanity", please see civility. Thanks. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about WP:GHIT within it's own context and point taken regarding WP:CIVIL. Comment tone revised accordingly, initial exclamation left only for reply integrity. Sadly I do not have the resources (extra time, library access or polish language proficiency) to locate the desired references. Outside of the WP guidelines "authority hub" listing in google do confer that a site is an authority on a notable subject. Not exactly WP notability.. but notable in general. I have seen SEO'ed authority hub listing for less than notable subjects, but I believe this is highly unlikely in this case. There's whole user communities built around PLD which are listed in the DMOZ's PLD category, and the specialty periodicals dedicated to linux seem to thrive on publishing reviews on every linux distro they can get their hands on. We're not talking just hits.. there's a whole category in DMOZ the great grand daddy of search engines that creates the very foundation of google which has been reviewed by live editors. This isn't just the superfluous results of some automate algorithms. http://www.dmoz.org/World/Polska/Komputery/Systemy_operacyjne/Linux/Dystrybucje/PLD/ 99.229.222.154 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Google's handling of a website is a good measure of notability of an encyclopedic topic. The accepted standard at Wikipedia is coverage in independent sources. Actually, these sources should be used to write the article from, otherwise a neutral point of view is hard to achieve. If you want to search for sources later, the article can be moved to your user space until you have found them. (You would however need to create an account for that.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:52, 6 April 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.