Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recovery Is Possible


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Recovery Is Possible

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable product. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Preserve It is unclear why the specific fact that there a "text-only website on a hosting site" is germane. A key-source that should be consulted is LWN (Linux Weekly News). This distribution is listed at: http://lwn.net/Distributions/#special — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnandKumria (talk • contribs) 07:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Next put your vote at the bottom not the top.
 * I was only using it as an example of the small scale and obscurity of the distribution. You've pointed to a site consisting of a very long list that in it's own words has "over 500 distributions". On this list RipLinuX is number 398 and has only a short descriptions of the distribution and two links. One of these links are to the distributions' main site and the other is to a fresh meat project with an even shorter description. I do not think this is a key source and it is not enough to pass notability guidelines. EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable Linux distribution with very little information or sources. Main site is run off a text only website on a hosting site. EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Searches for ""Recovery Is Possible" linux" and "rip linux" (supposedly it's more well known name) bring up a few possible sources    but I don't think these are sufficient to pass the WP:GNG as they are all specialist publications and none provide significant coverage. (EvilKeyboardCat invited me here). SmartSE (talk) 00:34, 21 November 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.