Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parabola GNU/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   no consensus. The discussion hinges on two sources: DistroWatch and FSF. It appears from the discussion that DistroWatch alone is not enough to establish notability due to the relative ease with which entries are added (compared to, say, getting coverage in a major newspaper). The FSF source is more debatable. Some argue that FSF is not independent because of their mutual acknowledgment, while others maintain that the FSF's listing of Parabola is to be seen as recognizing an accomplishment as opposed to associating itself with the distro. According to WP:GNG, being independent "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." The footnote reads "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." It really depends on your interpretation of "strong connection to them," and as closer, I have to say that both are equally valid arguments. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 12:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Parabola GNU/Linux

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. Only WP:RS is the FSF, which is not independent in this case, it promotes Parabola only because Parabola complies with FSF's guidelines. Articles require multiple reliable sources, and a single questionable one is not sufficient. All the other references are either blogs or from the distro's website itself. SudoGhost 15:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - It has a complete profile on DistroWatch, which is an independent reliable source and which is cited in the article. This alone should be sufficient to establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those entries on DistroWatch are user submitted; all one has to do to have an entry on DistroWatch is to have an existing Linux distro, this is not enough to establish notability. - SudoGhost 15:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually that is not correct. Anyone can submit a request that distro be included on DistroWatch, but each submission is vetted by the DistroWatch staff carefully against their inclusion criteria. The vast majority of distros submitted do not get written up as profiles by their staff (the entries are professionally created by a staff under editorial control, they are not user written like on a wiki). The process of submitting a distro is explained here. Distros that do not make their criteria are left on a waiting list found here. Since there are thousands of Linux distros and DistroWatch only lists the few hundred top ones they are very discriminant and so this is nothing like a "phone book" listing where everyone gets included. Distrowatch meets all the requirements for a reliable source: it is an independent publication with professional editorial oversight and is very discriminating as to what they include. I submit that being profiled on DistroWatch establishes notability to the extant required by WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, and I had linked that process above, and had read it. Nothing in the process describes editorial oversight, only a waiting period to ensure that the distro sticks around, there is no requirement that it is notable in any way.  In fact, the link provided details that one can buy an immediate listing (All you need to do is to buy an advertising banner and your distro will be listed straight away.)  That one can buy this "professional editorial oversight" makes it not very discriminating, and makes it completely useless as a reliable source to use for establishing the notability of a distro, as one can simply buy their entry on the site. - SudoGhost 16:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I guess we will have to leave it to the closing admin to adjudicate the reliable source value of DistroWatch then. Being the only cited (proposed) RS this AFD pretty much hangs on that decision. In the meantime I will see if I can locate any other reliable sources on this distro and add them. If I am able to do so I will make a note here. - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have finished a pretty extensive search for refs and basically found nothing else in the way of sources worth mentioning. This tends to lend credence to my earlier statement that the notability of this distro hangs on DistroWatch. If the closing admin finds that listing confers notability then it can stay otherwise it will be deleted, unless a new ref turns up in the next week. - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I would add (to previous Ahunt's statements) that Parabola is also one of 9 distributions "blessed" by FSF. Not an indiscriminate list. The ref: &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the FSF is generally a reliable source, but is not an independent reliable source in this instance. The only reason the FSF commented on it is because it meets FSF's strict guidelines, and worked with the FSF to ensure that compliance.  Because of that, and only because of that, is the FSF promoting it.  That no reliable sources have commented on this despite this relationship with the FSF is somewhat telling as to the lack of notability. - SudoGhost 16:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so, effectively. FSF is independent towards all the Linux Distributions (except for UTUTO, which was developed by FSF-LA people, AFAIK). The fact is that FSF is acting in line with its stated goals doesn't demote its independence in the sense of WP:GNG. Actually, such reasoning renders all the sources unreliable, as they publish the information in their scope of interest. Eg., a newspaper has a goal to earn by informing its readers, and thus it is interested in reporting the news events. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A newspaper is impartial in its reporting, and would report on an election despite who won, for example. The FSF only mentions Parabola because of its compliance with their guidelines, and have a conflict of interest in promoting this distro.  Third-party sources says it well: "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting."  The FSF has a clear interest in promoting an FSF-compliant distro.  Wikipedia articles require multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  This article has none. - SudoGhost 17:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be applicable if we discussed the review by FSF. It's not a promotion, just a report. As far as the fact of endorsement is one of the reasons of notability, FSF saying it "blesses" a distribution is clearly a valid source of information about this fact. Keep in mind, that we don't discuss the FSF's position regarding the notability of Parabola, but instead the fact of FSF's "blesssing" as a factor of notability. BTW, the inclusion criterion 4 of WP:NSOFT also applies. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that FSF saying it "blesses" a distribution is clearly a valid source of information about this fact, but this is an issue of WP:N, not WP:V. Notability is established by independent reliable sources. The FSF is not independent in regards to (one of a very, very few) FSF-complaint distros.  If a newspaper (or any other WP:RS) were to write about this, that would be an independent reliable source.  From reading WP:Independent sources, the FSF is in no way an independent source in regards to Parabola GNU/Linux. - SudoGhost 17:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Somehow you still fail to see my point. The notability follows not from the fact that FSF writes about Parabola (which would be prone to independence issue see here), but from the FSF "blessed" Parabola. This makes Parabola stand out from the total number of distribution. And you didn't address my reference to WP:NSOFT, which specifically addresses notability of software. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't follow how being "blessed" makes the FSF's conflict of interest in promoting a FSF-compliant distro exempt from the independence requirement of WP:GNG. As for WP:NSOFT, this does not apply for a number of reasons.  Being one of several distros that use selective software that meets a certain group's agenda does not qualify as "technical significance", especially because no independent reliable sources have commented on this significance, if this selectivity (which is not unique to this distro) does indeed equate to a technical significance.  The bottom line is that the FSF is not an independent source in regards to this article's subject.  When reading the first paragraph of the summary of this essay, and also this essay (specifically this), the FSF cannot be said to be independent of the Parabola GNU/Linux article.


 * However, even if we were to assume that the FSF had no connection to Parabola GNU/Linux, had no vested interest in promoting one of the few distros that are FSF-compliant and in complete accordance with their strict guidelines on software, and that the FSF had nothing to gain by promoting a distro that adhered to and promoted their goals, the fact remains that articles need multiple reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject, and even if the FSF source fulfilled that, it is still the only one that would. - SudoGhost 22:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Somehow I've taken your word for no news coverage of the event. In fact there is a news overage:, , and some more out there. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Brief news stubs paraphrasing a FSF press release don't satisfy the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. For example, this is more about List of Linux distributions endorsed by the Free Software Foundation, than Parabola GNU/Linux, and would certainly satisfy WP:V for the purposes of including Parabola GNU/Linux in that article, but does nothing for establishing the notability of Parabola GNU/Linux in its own right.  The other is much the same story, albeit in much fewer words. The third appears to be a user-submitted entry, falling under WP:SPS. - SudoGhost 14:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. The comments about Distrowatch above appear to show that it is not a reliable source in our sense, and endorsement by FSF as meeting their requirements is just that, not evidence that anyone uses or cares about it.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. Distrowatch does not appear to be any kind of reliable source, as their site says anyone can buy an article there. The FSF post, to draw a parallel to business notability, seems to just be a single award by an industry group. OSbornarfcontribs. 19:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: The DistroWatch entry is user submitted. I don't see how the website approving it to be posted shows notability. That is just like submitting a comment on an article to a reliable source and having the reliable source approve the comment. FSF is not an independent source. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Parabola is a free GNU/Linux distribution and also one of 9 distributions "blessed" by FSF. Not an indiscriminate list., and it is very important for the free community and FSF, and it is an alternative with only free software from ArchLinux. This distro is on Distrowatch and it deserves keep in wikipedia. --Emulatorman (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We appreciate that as the originator of this article you would naturally feel that it is important. However, articles are retained for notability.  The general guideline is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  For software there are other possible criteria:
 * The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement.
 * The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.
 * The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.
 * It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable. Reviews must be significant, from an reliable source, and/or assert notability.
 * If you have reliable sources that establish any of these, please bring them forward. The discussion above seems to have established that Distrowatch is not a reliable source as Wikipedia defines it, and that the FSF endorsement is not evidence of notability.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

--Charlesroth (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP If this is true, then how does the current Wikipedia article on Gentoo_Linux meet these guidelines. It has many cites but 99% are from gentoo.org. The one truly independent cite is a definition of the Gentoo penguin.
 * Parabola GNU/Linux is a real Linux distro that exists
 * The article is factual, not a "sales/marketing" bromide
 * FSF is an independent organization, and is a reliable source on the topic of Free Software
 * Distrowatch is an industry standard source for news about Linux
 * As far as I can tell these guidelines are being applied selectively given the number of Linux articles on Wikipedia not being held to the scrutiny of this article.
 * Ignoring for a moment that WP:OTHERSTUFF shouldn't be used as an argument for a deletion discussion, Gentoo has reliable sources that can establish the notability. I found these after a quick search online, and stronger sources could easily be found.  However, this WP:AFD isn't discussing Gentoo, and multiple editors have attempted to find any reliable sources to establish the notability of this subject, myself included.  None could be found. Please see the discussion above for why Distrowatch is not a reliable source for establishing the notability, and why the promotion by the FSF is not an independent source. "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." The FSF cannot honestly be said to fulfill this definition, given its vested interest in this distro, and only mentions it because the distro meets the requirements and furthers the aims and goals of the FSF.  This is not independent. - SudoGhost 03:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - As a comment to the off-wiki readers that are commenting about this, please be aware that there is no "bias" in this deletion discussion on my part. I had originally attempted to gather references in order to create the article a few months ago, but unfortunately Parabola GNU/Linux does not yet meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. This is not to say that it never will, but it currently does not. This is not an "attack" on Parabola GNU/Linux, or anything like that. Parabola GNU/Linux is a project, that you care about and believe in. It has strict rules on what does and does not belong (only free software), a worthy goal that keeps Parabola GNU/Linux strong, and keeps it what it is. This is a thing to be proud of. By that same token, Wikipedia is a project, that I care about and believe in. Its rules for what does and does not belong are not as strict, but they exist for a reason. Not to attack or "get rid of stuff you care about", please don't mistake it for that, and that is not, and never will be, the intention. - SudoGhost 04:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting that. I read though it and I have to add that the comments there are very misguided. This AFD discussion is not a question of being deletionist or inclusionist or exercising some bias against Linux-Libre projects, this is strictly to determine whether this article meets WP:N for inclusion or not. The other thing I would add is that complaints and posting vague conspiracy theories on forums doesn't influence this debate or Wikipedia policy. If people cared about what articles are on Wikipedia then they would participate here in making well-formed logical and persuasive augments and not suddenly join Wikipedia to make personal attacks, as above (which I will remove). They would also participate in forming Wikipedia's notability policy instead of making conspiracy theory noises in obscure forums. As per the above discussion I have tried to show that this article meets notability requirements in having been written up in independent third party references, such as tech media reviews, but it hasn't. There is its entry on DistroWatch and nothing else to date. This brings up two problems: 1. If the subject of this article is so important then why hasn't any kind of press reported on it? and 2. How can we create and maintain an encyclopedia article when the only sources really available are the article subject's own project pages all about itself? Encyclopedia articles require more than "it is great, use it" sources, they need to be balanced and include criticism and review. Without independent references available we can't add any criticism and that is what results in biased articles. Articles on Windows have tons of very pointed criticism, because a lot has been published, resulting in fairly balanced encyclopedia articles. The notability requirements are Wikipedia policies for a reason, without them we would get promotional style articles with no criticism of the subject and the smaller and more obscure the subject, the less media coverage would be available and therefore the less balanced the article. If the subject of this article is really so important to so many people why has there been not one single review published? - Ahunt (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, doesn't currently meet WP:GNG. We need at least two in-depth reviews in independent third-party reliable sources, and we don't have them. Yworo (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, Parabola GNU/Linux deserves to keep in wikipedia because is a real GNU/Linux distro that respects FSF principles and does not confuses users with pseudo free licenses. It's a serious project that defends the freedom and it has good references. e.g: Distrowatch, FSF , and Gato por Libre article, published on Alexandre Oliva Blog and Espirito Livre magazine nº25 --Coadde (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Coadde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The distrowatch and FSF references have been discussed above; I'm not convinved they demonstrate notability. As for other two, the first only appears to mention the distro, if at all, in passing (I'm using an online translator so forgive me if this is wrong.) The second, PDF source again only seems (again, I don't read the language so I may be wrong) to be mentioning the distro in passing while discussing an event. OSbornarfcontribs. 00:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP Parabola is one of a very small number of GNU/Linux distributions (of fully working currently installable distributions, I believe one of two) that take full advantage of the CPU in the Yeeloong computer. It parent distribution, Arch GNU/Linux, has support but for a slower ABI. As of Mon Jan 16 2012, it has "parabola gnu/linux" has 148,000 google hits not hosted by the parabola project ("parabola gnu/linux" -site:parabolagnulinux.org). It's also important to the free software movement, being listed as one of the FSF/GNU project's recommended Free GNU/Linux distributions at http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html - together Parabola and the Yeeloong represent the most open mobile general purpose computing platform currently available. -- Djbclark (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The number of Google hits are not an indication of the notability (or lack of notability) of any given topic. Please see WP:GHITS.  - SudoGhost 15:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Parabola GNU/Linux is an alternative free distribution to Arch Linux so is not right discriminate it. Personally, the ArchLinux's people have a diferent ethics ideology and the Parabola's people have a free ethics ideology and there are respect them, My question is: Why the people respect ArchLinux and not Parabola?. This article go to specially addressed to Opensource's people and it musts be reflect for the people about the issue. --Jorginho 2 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Jorginho 2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It is not an issue of not respecting ideologies, but of the subject's lack of notability (per Wikipedia's definition). - SudoGhost 15:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is pretty funny that someone tagged as spa the person who started his/her participation in the AfD discussion by hitting Discuss this page red link. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Hi, I'm surprised this article was proposed for deletion. Not only is it officially recognized by the FSF, it is also one of the few distros fully functional on open standards hardware such as the Yeeolong. Composition and style could be improved a little, but that can easily be done. --Arhuma (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Arhuma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Could you please remove the tag? My account is not an WP:SPATG. I've been contributing as an IP since 2005, and joined in 2009.--Arhuma (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * First there is no way to prove that that is the case and second, as the tag says it is what that particular account has been used for that the tag draws attention to. Your account has made two edits, both to this AFD in the last two days. You should note that SPA accounts are not ignored by admins in closing an AFD, but that factor is taken into account in the closing decision. It seems quite apparent that someone interested in the subject of this article has organized a concerted off-Wikipedia campaign to save this article from deletion, however the large number of people who have suddenly opened accounts on Wikipedia to make wild emotional arguments here about why their favourite distro should have a Wikipedia article, are not going to convince the closing admin, because this debate will be determined not by emotional pleas, but by the presence of reliable third party references on the subject, of which so far there are virtually none. As I have said several times here that is the only issue that matters, not SPA tags. I added the DistroWatch article as a ref to the article and have argued above for keeping the article on the sole basis of that ref, but I will have to wait and see how the closing admin adjudicates on the validity of DistroWatch as a ref to establish notability. I have also carried out extensive searches for refs for this article and have found none, in English anyway. If you are dedicated to keeping this article then you should be presenting all the third-party references here (in any language) as those will be the only factor that will matter in this debate's outcome. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The way to prove it is to look for my account in .es and .it. As per the IP contributions, you are right, those cannot be proved. I can't tell whether a campaign has been put up, but one thing is for sure: my account was not opened for the sole purpose of expressing my opinion here, that's why I'd appreciate the removal of the tag, I understand it was a mistake.


 * As you brought up the subject of emotional pleas, I would like to point out that it does not apply in my case and in fact you cannot see it in any of my contributions. In this particular case, that's because although I am a supporter of freedom in the technology and knowledge areas, I strongly believe that the efforts put in the development of distros could be used much more efficiently in the development or improvement of the many free applications that are still needed. However, I still think distributions should have a place in Wikipedia in order to improve it, specially when well supported by a committed group of people, as it seems to be the case here.


 * Regarding third party references, I don't think we can safely say that there are virtually none. The DistroWatch that you mentioned is one, FSF is another one.--Arhuma (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Those refs seem to have been pretty much discounted as not independent third party refs, DistroWatch, because they sell entries to anyone with $200 and FSF, because they are not independent of the subject. We shall see what the closing admin has to say on those proposed refs, as he or she will have the last word. Otherwise, yes your arguments have been entirely emotional, saying "I am a supporter of freedom in the technology and knowledge areas" and therefore this article should stay is not an argument based on Wikipedia policy, but an emotional appeal and perhaps also an implied statement that anyone who disagrees that this article should be kept therefore does not support those aims, which is not the case. Nothing you have added to this discussion is going to result in this article being retained, only showing that there are independent third party refs will do that. You will note too that my comment was to keep this article, not delete it, but I have had to hang that entirely on DistroWatch, since no one in the tech press, or any other press for that matter, seems to taken any notice of this distro or written a word on it. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What is being quoted is not an emotional statement, it is fact. And it is not an argument to back up my position on this issue. Rather, it is a premise to the following statement, which was omitted from the quote. The reason it was necessary to make things clear is that there was a reference to accounts being opened for the sake of this issue, which in my case is false. My account has mistakenly been tagged as SPA and I hope it will be fixed.--Arhuma (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * About everyone coming here: There was no off-site campaign to save *this* article from deletion, but the article on Spanish Wikipedia (which was AfD, but decided Keep). The original version of this article is the Spanish article ran through Google Translate. The attention this article is receiving is either momentum from the Spanish article, or because of an email about changing Parabola's path to make our issues with the article entirely false (such as switching kernels so that calling it a "Linux distribution" is entirely false). ~ LukeShu (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue that is being debated here is not whether the subject of this article is recognized by the FSF, or any other organization, and not whether its composition or style is polished or not. Articles get included in Wikipedia strictly based on the presence of significant write-ups on the subject in independent third party references, which on Wikipedia is called notability. So the arguments you have presented here will not cause this article to be retained, finding significant independent third parties references is the only thing that will. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that recognition by FSF is of key importance to determine notability in this case. That is because the central point of the article is that the distro is 100% free software, so asking for other sources is unreal, FSF is the authoritative source that can attest that claim, I can hardly think of any others. And the fact that it's 100% libre and capable of running on open standards hardware is also the key technical significance of the distro as per WP:NSOFT. Deleting this article is to deprive readers of useful information.


 * The reason why I mentioned composition and style is because that is the only issue I can see, certainly not a basis for deletion.--Arhuma (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read this AfD, it already explains why the FSF is not an independent, reliable source for establishing the notability of this article's subject. WP:NSOFT doesn't apply simply due to selective use of software, especially if no independent, reliable sources make the argument that this is technically significant.  This is also not the only distro that makes this same selective use of software, so WP:NSOFT does not apply.  Notability must be established from independent, third-party reliable sources.  - SudoGhost 12:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, WP:NSOFT doesn't apply because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? This is a novel approach at AfD discussions... May be it's time to move your user page to mainspace? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that WP:NSOFT applies to this situation, but that this article doesn't meet any of the criteria specified there, once again because it lackes reliable third party refs. - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the article passes the criteria of WP:NSOFT is another matter. Whether or not a position can be backed up by essay is also a question for discussion, probably. But saying that the essay doesn't apply because there are other distributions is... weird. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not simply that there are other distributions, it is the fact that there are other distributions that already adhere to this Linux-libre software guideline, which makes a claim of technical significance because of this fact highly questionable in yet another FSF-adherent distro. - SudoGhost 14:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no sense in your implication of idea that only one item can be technically significant on one criterion. Technical significance is a substantial deviation from the common principles. Given the ratio of guideline compatible and incompatible distributions I would say this deviation is indeed substantial. Regarding the nature of the guideline I would consider this deviation to be of technical nature. Where am I wrong? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it had been the first distro to do so, and reliable sources had commented on this fact, this would be true. But it is the 9th (from my understanding) distro to do so.  The ratio of compatible v. incompatible distros isn't an indication of technical significance.  However, I don't think it's productive to argue what is technically significant or not, given that WP:NSOFT specifically requires that reliable sources comment on this technical significance, not Wikipedia editors.  No such sources have been presented, and the FSF is certainly not an independent source on determining the technical significance of something on the merit that it is complaint with FSF's guidelines. - SudoGhost 15:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FSF is the most reliable source on compliance with its own guidelines. Period. If the FSF was a foundation with little to no awareness, it would require supporting sources to establish the importance of the statement, but in this case clearly the FSF's statement is enough. And again I see no sense in your implication that only one item can be technically significant on one criterion. Saying that the one most significant is the first one doesn't clarify the reason to exclude the other 8 from a list, given that the total number is 4000+ (as reported by Distrowatch). &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How many reliable sources can be provided that say that Parabola GNU/Linux is technically or historically significant? The FSF source certainly doesn't say this, only that it is compliant with their guidelines.  To infer that this therefore equates to a technical significance is original research, unless a reliable source can verify this claim. - SudoGhost 17:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody seems to claim historical significance, while the compliance with FSF's guideline is a kind of technical significance. And there is the only possible reliable source claiming that – FSF. Apart of FSF there can't be any reliable sources about FSF's opinion. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Guideline compliance being a technical significance in this instance would certainly need to be reliably sourced by an independent source. If the FSF claimed that Parabola GNU/Linux is technically significant (which it doesn't) on the basis that it meets the FSF's criteria, this would in no way be an independent source. To be an independent source, X cannot claim that Y is significant only because it follows X's rules, this would require the reliable source Z to comment on it. - SudoGhost 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's ridiculous. We don't require sources to explicitly state that something is notable. We conclude notability from sources. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For most notability criteria, absolutely. WP:NSOFT is more specific than that, however, requiring that it is "recognized as having historical or technical significance."  - SudoGhost 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For most notability criteria, absolutely. WP:NSOFT is more specific than that, however, requiring that it is "recognized as having historical or technical significance."  - SudoGhost 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS you linked is concerning AfD arguments based on the existence (or not) of Wikipedia articles. This has nothing to do with what I commented on.  WP:NSOFT requires that it is technically or historically significant in some way, and when it is simply the latest in a group of distros that also use these same selective software guidelines, there is nothing significant about it.  It meets WP:NSOFT when "It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources."  Nowhere does this article meet this criteria.  This simply states that it "follows the Free System Distribution Guidelines".  Following a guideline does not equate to a technical significance, especially if there are no reliable, third-party sources that recognize this.  Nearly every distro does something different than the others in some way, this does not by default equate to a technical significance. - SudoGhost 14:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We have already discussed the reliability and independence of FSF and Parabola above. And still I see no proof that people from FSF developed Parabola or foundation paid it development, as much as I see no lack of reliability in FSF's claims about its position and no advertising or promotion in FSF's news item. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of which are required for something to be considered non-independent. WP:Independent sources says in the summary that "Independent sources have...no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)."  The Free Software Foundation certainly has a great deal of personal, financial, or political gain from the publication of a distribution that painstakingly (and admirably, to be quite honest) adheres to the free software movement and the FSF's guidelines.  The only factor in the FSF mentioning Parabola GNU/Linux is that it complies with the FSF's guidelines, if it did not, the FSF wouldn't breathe a word about it.  This situation, where one entity (the FSF) creates some guidelines, and the other (Parabola GNU/Linux) purposefully adheres to these guidelines and is then accepted by the FSF is a relationship between the two, meaning that when the FSF mentions this relationship, it is not from the position of an independent, disinterested, third-party reliable source.  This is not enough to establish the notability of the article's subject. - SudoGhost 15:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So what is FSF's personal, financial or political gain then? You are taking the idea of independent sources too broad, thus making it overly restrictive. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See Ahunt's statement below. - SudoGhost 17:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not very convincing, actually. If there was an agenda to collect as many member distributions as possible, the Gobuntu would also be on the list. It is pretty evident that FSF uses passive approach to the process of adding distributions to the list, which is a manifestation of lack of FSF's interest in growing the list. So this criterion of affiliation evidently fails. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Collect as many" was never said, nor implied. Strict guidelines do not equate to a passive approach, but it could be argued that it would actually make them even more eager to list something that does follow these guidelines, meaning the FSF reference cannot for establish the notability of the article, as it is not independent. - SudoGhost 18:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I noted Gobuntu – a fully guideline-compliant distribution which just didn't apply for confirmation. I see no indication of FSF not being independent still. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gobuntu could not apply to be placed on a list that did not at the time exist. It ended up being a short term project that ended in March 2009, one month before this List of Free GNU/Linux Distributions was created. When the list was created, Gobuntu didn't exist, and had been merged into Ubuntu as a Linux-libre option.  Although this option exists, it is still very much incompatible with their guidelines. As for the independence of the FSF, it has been thoroughly explained several times by multiple editors why the FSF is not an independent source in this instance, with no evidence or arguments refuting this consensus. - SudoGhost 10:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't a good idea to claim consensus against independence of FSF with equal amount of editors on both sides, majority of voters on the keep side and no more or less adequate explanation of FSF affiliation yet. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote. The conflict of interest that many of the keep !votes have should also be taken into consideration, as well as the fact that many of the keep !votes do not in any way address the notability issues, which is the reason the article is at AfD.  Nor do they address the issue of the FSF and its independence of the article's subject.  I think that this sums it up well. - SudoGhost 21:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have every confidence that the closing admin will read the whole discussion here carefully and make some comment on all these factors in the closing remarks. - Ahunt (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The more distributions that follow the FSF's guidelines, the more the FSF has to gain.


 * Could you please specify what would be FSF's gain exactly?--Arhuma (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As with any standards organization, the more products that adhere to that standard the more important the standard becomes, the more influential the standards organization becomes and the more donations it will get. It doesn't matter if you are talking about FSF, ISO or ASTM, if everyone ignored the standards they set the organization would eventually be deemed "not relevant", lose support and eventually disappear. So I agree that a standards-setting organization is not independent (in a Wikipedia reference sense) from products that comply with their standards, as both are mutually endorsing each other. - Ahunt (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So who is going to back up the claim that Parabola is a 100% free distribution, if not FSF?--Arhuma (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between WP:V and WP:N. - SudoGhost 18:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell that is it, the FSF listing is verifiable, but does not confer notability, due to its lack independence. - Ahunt (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment: The Wikipedia Comunity is a group of people that They do not to leave anything because this is not a free font for search information if not that the information is manipulated and just say that they want to say. For example GNU/Linux, the users change about Linux or my article in galego do not to do in galego according to wikipedia moderators. --Jorginho 2 (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although these discussions are not a vote, this is a duplicate keep, but I'm not sure what this is trying to say. It seems to be more a comment regarding this and the use of WP:COMMONNAME concerning Linux as opposed to GNU/Linux when describing this article's subject, and not anything to do with Parabola GNU/Linux and why the article should not be deleted. - SudoGhost 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is my analysis of Parabola according to the criteria in WP:NSOFT, which says if it meets any one of the below then it may be considered notable. I wouldn't consider any one of these to be satisfactorily met, but would be willing to give multiple "half points" to allow notability. If I missed anything, speak up!
 * Discussed in reliable sources: Not that I can tell.
 * Subject of instruction in schools: Not that I can tell.
 * Subject of 3rd party manuals or reviews:
 * Inclusion in the GLDT (which is included on several Wikipedia pages).
 * Having [X] significance:
 * Historical: Too new to have historical significance
 * Technical:
 * Takes full advantage of the Yeeloong. (One of two distros that do?) I'm surprised I can't find any good citations for this; I expected to find a page about it on the Freedom Included site.
 * FSF Free Distro, which I would compare to an award by an industry group.
 * ~ LukeShu (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NSOFT still requires reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the article. If you are aware of any, please either place them in the article, or on the article's talk page, so that the notability can be established. - SudoGhost 20:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * FSF is a renown reliable, independent and third party source; so far I've seen no evidence in this discussion to show the contrary. If you think it's not, you need to prove it, personal opinions are not valid arguments to delete an article. If more than one source with this characteristics is required, then a template can be placed on the page. Deletion should be reserved for extreme cases, this does not seem to be such a case at all.


 * By the way, I see my account is still marked SPA, although I did give references where to go and checked to verify it is not. --Arhuma (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Por la muestra se conoce el paño. As I said previously, when one entity (the FSF) creates some guidelines, and the other (Parabola GNU/Linux) purposefully adheres to these guidelines and is then accepted by the FSF, this is a relationship between the two. When the FSF comments on this relationship, it is not from the position of an independent, disinterested, third-party reliable source.  This is not my opinion, but is a statement of fact.  When the question is asked, "Why is Parabola GNU/Linux mentioned there?" the answer is "Because they complied with the guidelines created by the FSF."  The fact that this is the answer to this question means that the FSF is not an independent source here. - SudoGhost 12:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Purposefully"? Are you trying to imply that the only purpose of making Parabola 100% free is to be recognized by FSF? That is like saying that if I make my website compliant with W3 standards, my specific purpose is to be allowed to use the W3 logo and not, for instance, a desire to be nice to users with physical disabilities. And then the W3C and I will have a "relationship". Why does the Parabola article say the distro complies with FSF's standards? Because it does. How do they prove it? By linking to FSF. Period. FSF did not participate in any way whatsoever in the development of Parabola, so it is independent and third-party. The fact that FSF sets guidelines to which people adhere, does not mean FSF has a relationship or it participates in people's activities. If it did, it would be publicly known, not a secret at all. So if you think FSF has a "relationship" with Parabola, it should be easy for you to prove it.


 * As per those Spanish words you write, I don't know what they mean, but they sound ironic. Can't really tell. --Arhuma (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The intent is not known, and is irrelevant. What matters is the result.  I'm not suggesting (and never have) that the FSF developed Parabola, nor was it suggested that they have a relationship outside of this situation.  The reference in question, however, is a relationship between the two.  Parabola GNU/Linux and the FSF interacted with one another and determined that Parabola GNU/Linux met the FSF's criteria, and was listed on their website.  Therefore, when the FSF says that Parabola GNU/Linux meets the FSF's requirements, it is not from a disinterested, independent standpoint.


 * As for the spanish, my apologizes. It is from Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes, and means "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."  The fact that Parabola GNU/Linux's claim of notability is that it complies with the FSF's guidelines and was accepted by the FSF as meeting these guidelines means that the FSF is, by definition, not independent when promoting Parabola GNU/Linux.  The FSF has a conflict of interest in promoting distros that adhere to their guidelines.  The more something is adhered to, the more common it is.  The more common it is, the awareness of it increases.  The FSF wants awareness of their free software guidelines.  This is the conflict of interest.


 * However, let's assume that my "personal opinion" that the FSF listing Parabola GNU/Linux helps strengthen the FSF's position and helps legitimize their guidelines is wrong. Let's also assume that I'm wrong in my assumption that the FSF cares about free software, and wants people to adhere to their guidelines.  Let's assume they are completely disinterested in the subject, and are commenting on it from a disinterested, neutral perspective.  The fact remains that they both have the potential to gain from this relationship between the two, making that reference, at best, a questionable source for establishing the notability of an article.  Articles require multiple third-party reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject, not a single, questionable source.  Multiple editors (myself included) have made a great deal of effort to attempt to find reliable sources for this article.  Each one of us have up with nothing.  Therefore, even if I'm completely wrong, that the FSF has no conflict of interest and nothing to gain from their interaction with Parabola GNU/Linux, the article is still lacking the reliable sources required to establish the notability of the subject. - SudoGhost 16:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can find no signficant independent reliable sources covering this disro to establish notability. WP:NSOFT is an essay, and not a guideline.  AS for the sourcing presented above, Distrowatch is not a reliable source per the discussion aboce, nor does the endorsemnt of the FSF denote notability. -- Whpq (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Linux software is the field in which we are probably the strongest, and have been since the beginning. It's appropriate for us to be somewhat more flexible in what we accept here. It technically does meet the guidelines, and the standard that the FSF is not a reliable source for what it endorses seems somewhat unjustified. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any guidelines the article meets, technically or otherwise. I haven't seen any guideline or consensus that being Linux related exempts an article from meeting notability requirements.  The article has absolutely zero independent sources, not a single one.  How can an article be neutral when the only even remotely reliable source is a single reference by the FSF, an non-independent endorsement?  The article is WP:TOOSOON, at best. - SudoGhost 03:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What you are citing is not a policy or guideline but an essay, and it deals exclusively with *actors* and *films*, not relevant to this case at all. This AfD looks like a clear case in which the poor applcation of a rule could prevent us from attaining our goal, which is "to build a free encyclopedia." WP:RS: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." See also the last of the WP:FIVEPILLARS: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". And again, FSF is an independent source that attests Parabola is a 100% free distro, as has already been explained. --Arhuma (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This latest argument put forward seems to say "yes this article does not qualify for inclusion because it has no independent sources that establish notablity, but please keep it anyway, because WP:ILIKEIT and think it is important". If we are going to keep any article that even one person likes or thinks is important then we have to do away with the requirement for independent references and accept all articles regardless of their merit and notability. Wikipedia thereby becomes just a blog instead of an encyclopedia. For instance, I have a collection of dryer lint that I think is important. Now there aren't any independent reliable refs about it, but I could create a Facebook page about it and then use that as a non-independent ref to start a Wikipedia page about it as well, because the subject is important to me. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not what I said or implied. You are making a wrong interpretation of my comment.--Arhuma (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Um...I wasn't responding to you, but to User:DGG, who started this particular thread and the "keep" argument he or she presented. - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to closing Admin: In reading this whole discussion you may have correctly concluded that the use of DistroWatch as a reference to establish notability is an important issue. Some good arguments have been made above regarding this. There are several other articles that also hang on DistroWatch to establish notability, so I would appreciate it if, in closing, your remarks could include your judgment upon this issue. If you decide that it is not an independent third party reference that confers notability then we will have some more work to do on those other articles, either trying to find more refs or moving them to AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2012 (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.