Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qubes OS


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Qubes OS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Plenty of refs but almost all are direct own refs or refs by Joanna Rutkowska in the blogosphere. It appears that Joanna Rutkowska is very closely associated with Qubes OS and gives interviews about it - and this interview is the final ref. Nothing independent, nothing substantial. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 22:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Racer  -Ωmegα  22:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I just added two articles from The Economist and Wired to the article. It's clear that the developers (of which Joanna is one) do not update / care about this Wikipedia page, so I would recommend updating it with newer citations and deleting anything that's too self-referential rather than arguing it should be deleted due to poor maintenance by the community. They occasionally link to notable third-party articles that discuss Qubes on the main website which is where I found the above articles. This is an important software project that other notable projects like Whonix compare themselves to (and try to integrate with). CreakCask (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Qubes is presently at number 102 in Linux DistroWatch ranking (See ), gaining in popularity over months. It would be funny that this important linux distribution has no wikipedia entry. Brunogabuzomeu (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S warm   ♠  23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's one of the few linux distributions mirrored on the official linux kernel.org site. If you delete Qubes feel free to delete the rest of the distributions on that list from Wikipedia as well. But seriously, if you find the article bad please help clean it up and update it -- it's clearly notable, just lacks attention. CreakCask (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm an designer who works on various open source projects and have been contributing to Qubes recently. I've just updated the logo to be the current logo which is displayed on the website BrennanNovak (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Also if the issue is the citations, why not put up Template: Primary sources warning, rather than the deletion warning? The original complaint was entirely focused on the lack of third-party refs. Did my additions of third-party references help? Some feedback would be appreciated. Feel free to delete some the first-party references that you find most problematic. CreakCask (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are multiple reliable sources discussing this on the web, for instance, http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Features/Qubes-OS and http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/81282.html?rss=1 These sources are in addition to those discussed above. Theorem41 (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Independent of any quality issues with the text of the article itself, the topic is a notable Linux distribution. ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 03:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I would say refs and  show enough notability for WP:GNG, in addition to sources from Theorem41. The article could probably use more third-party sources, though. Daß Wölf (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Plenty of evidence of growing notability. Article could use improvement as others note above, but should *not* be deleted.  --Treekids (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2015 (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.