Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pisi 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. The consensus is that this distro is not notable at this time, and that the sources provided do not meet the criteria for reliable, independent sources. Should such sources be forthcoming in the future, then the article could be re-created  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Pisi Linux

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:N not established. In fact, I couldn't find a single non-affiliated source, so this might be a matter of WP:TOOSOON. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 17:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I am the moderator of forum.pisilinuxworld.org, and I do not understand what is wrong with this wikipedia page. It does look the same as many other linux distro pages. So why is it delete all the time? Richdb69 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richdb69 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should it be an article for deletion? I not see the point. What is wrong with the page? Can someone explain that please?


 * Some reviews about Pisi Linux http://linuxmigrante.blogspot.nl/2013/06/pisi-linux-beta-real-life-test.html, http://linuxmigrante.blogspot.nl/2013/03/so-long-pardus-anka-welcome-pisi-linux.html, http://aleqwerty.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/disponible-pisi-linux-rc-el-heredero-de-pardus/ Richdb69 (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Because I see not any reason why to delete it. We trying to create a good linux distro that is open and free for everybody. Richdb69 (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I indicated, the notability requirements are not met: an article needs at least two independent, reliable sources (personal blogs don't count). I also urge you to read the conflict of interest guidelines, as well as WP:SOAP. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 20:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation (that I do not understand at all). I was allways thinking that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where people can find subjects they read about. And sorry if I read the guidelines I still not understand anything about the rules (they are to long and to hard to read). We are just a hardworking team that is trying to create a wonderfull Linux distro, and this Wikipedia entry was just for people to let them read a little more about the history of Pisi Linux. So maybe we come back in a few years if we have reliable sources ;). Have a nice day :) Richdb69 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, There is a lot to learn for those of us who may be new to editing articles. Do the Wikipedia admins consider that progress (albeit slow), is being made with this particular article?
 * Thanks.
 * Souloftherobot (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No other editors have commented yet, but note that my nomination does not concern the quality of the article. It's about the notability of the topic, and that's still not established. There's one (apparently) independent source that describes the package manager, but notability is not inherited. The rest are all affiliated and self-published sources. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 10:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant the article in general, and of course the main problem highlighted is neutrality/notability. Anyway, as to the statement regarding inherited notability, I don't see that applying because the title of the source is Perfect Package Management and although Pardus was listed as using the system, it was PISI (system) that was the focus - not Pardus. Of course, Pardus was the only distro using PISI at the time. Since then, Pisi Linux (as a fork of Pardus) followed by SoluOS use the PISI system. I also don't accept that your latest removal of 'ease of use' from the Pisi Linux article - for reasons of POV - is entirely correct either: Package management (package creation, at least) is not particularly easy. However, I thought the reference I provided supported the inclusion of 'ease of use' in the Pisi Linux article. Btw, Ikey Doherty, has stated that his whole motivation for switching to the PISI system was exactly for reasons of simplicity and ease if use. As ditching one packaging system for another (not a trivial undertaking), and for the reasons given, then I don't see that as simply POV.
 * Gosh, this seems hard work. I fully understand the need for neutrality etc, but it can be a fine line: I doubt anything like the quantity (or quality) of Wikipedia articles would exist, if people had no interest whatsoever in a particular subject.
 * I do understand that you must have to point the same things out time and again, which must be a pain. But I think some things can be a little nit-picky, even automatic, maybe making people feel that they perhaps should not continue to work on articles. The POV and the (still unexplained) removal of the word 'readily' from the Pisi Linux article (really, just looking to learn and understand, in order to provide better contributions) are examples. Also, your assumption that I (by your specific) wording was writing about 'my product' seemed dished out a bit auto.
 * Sorry for the extended nature of this post, but basically the reason for my previous post here was just to get some feedback as to if the article was progress overall and the quality side of things was not really at the front of my mind, as I knew this was not the 'deal-breaker', and could be worked on not under pressure.
 * Thanks.
 * Souloftherobot (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't really the place for extended discussion of the article; let's use the talk page instead. Apologies, again, for the erroneous assumption that you were involved in the Pisi project. As for readily, I still find it an editorializing remark that violates WP:NPOV.
 * To get back to notability: the referenced source mentions the Pisi package manager, but not Pisi Linux. Since the package manager was developed by the Pardus team, it does not establish notability of Pisi Linux. That's all there is to it: you need at least two (but preferably more) reliable, independent sources that describe Pisi Linux, and not just mention it in passing or describe elements of it that can be found in other systems as well. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 13:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * new sources about PisiLinux : http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/60624, http://ostatic.com/blog/linux-potpourri-kde-4-11-beta-debian-7-1-pisi-linux-beta Richdb69 (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd found the latter one while hunting for sources myself (I'm not just out to get this page deleted), but it's just a summary taken from somebody's blog. The former looks like a more proper reference with significant coverage of Pisi Linux, feel free to I'll cite it. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 10:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Souloftherobot (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Given the overlap between this article and Pardus (operating system), can I suggest that the Pisi Linux page be incorporated into that page as a section? That prevents a lot of duplication of information and would relax the notability requirements. If Pisi Linux takes off and gets sufficient third-party coverage, it can always be split off to its own article again. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: the Pisi Linux forum contains a post that recruits users to this discussion. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 14:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Recruits? I only ask Pisi Linux to write down the reason why they are using Pisi Linux. And why I did that? Because at the deletion page every single person can write down why something should stay or must be deleted. So wikipedia ask persons to write comments. And that is what I did ask in this forum post. This has nothing todo with recruiting. But I try to rewrite the post so it not looks like recruiting in your eyes. Richdb69 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd come across those as well but wasn't sure if such a 'snippet' could be usefully incorporated. Also, it wrongly states 'Pisi Linux, the predecessor to Pardus Linux'. As to the former, I didn't think it would be accepted. Hmm...


 * The idea of incorporating Pisi Linux within the Pardus page:
 * Problem (even if just temp) is that Pardus article is very 'out of sync'.
 * Pardus is defunct so that is a problem. How can Pisi linux be incorporated (or even overlap at all) either with something that does not exist or with current Pardus - which btw, I'm not even sure what, exactly, current Pardus is. I am not even sure what role TR govt plays now - It is hard to say, but possibly Pardus is now a Community project?
 * The Pardus article does not make clear the distinction between the defunct Pardus and the current Pardus. The only thing in common is the name. Even though it is mentioned that 2011.2 was last use of Pisi, other components are listed. The two instances of Pardus blur.


 * The same situation exists at the DWW Page for Pardus - Blurring of the old (and defunct) and the new (and actual status of) distro representing Pardus. It's a bit of a mess.
 * I can understand this suggestion as an attempt to find a possible (even if temporary) resolution - but I don't see it working.


 * Point taken about the recruitment.

Souloftherobot (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Primary sources, project listings and blogs are the only sources and Google provides nothing better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep "....... the only sources". Not one reliable source? "....and Google provides nothing better". You've not been able to find anything - so that's it then, job done? And just when I thought I was starting to get the hang of this. Still, makes life for everyone else easier I suppose. But seriously, This article is making progress (albeit slowly), isn't it? I am in the process of working through all references to try and improve quality and relevance. Also, I aim to try and improve the quality of the article overall. I am no Wikipedia Wizard though and I'm certainly no master of English so my efforts, at least, may take a little while. But I wonder how many articles manifest as 'ready for consumption'?

Souloftherobot (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete - can't see how this is a notable distro. Remember we need significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The irony is that if supporters/devs put as much time into generating industry media coverage as they have into creating this article, the subject might possibly be notable by now. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your distro - do that elsewhere, get some coverage and then come back. It'll be a whole different story. Stalwart 111  12:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I added two sources which are not-affiliated. One of them is Softpedia page and the other one is Distrozilla. Bekiroflaz (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * One of those is coverage-by-submission (I could have added that information - see WP:USERG) and the other is nowhere near "significant coverage" with one line (seemingly from the devs) and a list of external links. That's not enough for notability. Stalwart 111  21:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Softpedia is a near-indiscriminate collection of software, while the other is indeed an WP:SPS. I've removed these links per WP:ELNO: they're not sources, and they don't add information that cannot be found on the Pisi Linux project website. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Stalwart and Qwertyus.
 * Stalwart: Firstly, Softpedia is not a user-generated website. It has its own editors. Secondly, I read the policy that you give. But I didn't see any sentence that says about amount of information that presented in the source.


 * Qwertyus: I didn't read any policy about the representation style of the information in a source. Secondly, I agree that the second one is user-generated. Thirdly, I have read ELNO but I didn't see any policy that supports you. So I will revert your edit. Also I will add new external links. Bekiroflaz (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I won't go into an edit war over this one. I still stand by my point, though: per WP:ELNO, "one should generally avoid providing external links to ... [a]ny site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Softpedia is just a download site with a short description, it doesn't add any information. Distrozilla is an WP:SPS, similar to an open wiki.
 * Also, Softpedia listing does not confer notability per WP:NSOFT: it does not discuss Pisi Linux as "significant in its particular field". It just lists some features, none of which are particularly unique (except maybe for the "virus free" feature, I've never had that promise from a Linux distro). Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 13:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nor will I, because I think it's a moot point anyway. Softpedia has processes to allow devs to submit their software for inclusion and says nothing about editorial oversight - only that there might be a 24-hour processing delay before software is listed. That's too close to user-generation for me. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage" which 1 line is not. Stalwart 111  22:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Pardus, from which this distribution is derived. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any evidence of notability, and my own research has turned up only blogs and reviews of Pardus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure a redirect is the answer.
 * If the Pisi Linux article is unable to satisfy the notability criteria, then it should rather be deleted until such time as legitimate references can be found. Pardus article has problems of its own: outdated and lacks clear distinction between PiSi-based Pardus (EOL since early 2012) and the current Pardus (basically a re-branded Debian). Also, it might even be the case that Pardus is now a 'Community' maintained effort only, and no longer a Turkish government project.


 * Because of the blurring/confusion generally, as to what Pardus actually is, I feel that lumping Pisi Linux in with Pardus would just add to the confusion - and that (obviously) is totally counter to the aims of any work of reference. So, if it is determined that Pisi Linux does not warrant an article of itself (notability/toosoon) then deletion seems more logical than redirect.

Souloftherobot (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can understand those concerns. However, if Pisi was once a fork, then this can certainly be documented there.  If necessary, an explicit statement can be made that Pisi Linux is no longer related to Pardus.  If this seems too confusing, then I'd endorse deletion as an alternative. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 21 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.