Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SYSLINUX


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

SYSLINUX

 * – ( View AfD View log )

depends on primary sources since 2008, has already been deleted from ptwiki, all sources in this article are related to the project developers, violating WP:N which says: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" Biel  22:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. --  Biel  22:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a possible redirect target: Hans Peter Anvin. Pavlor (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment @ So I believe we can redirect in order to preserve some of the article's content. Biel  11:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep :
 * In other languages
 * &mdash;Jerome Potts (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In other languages
 * &mdash;Jerome Potts (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment  Despite all this, it still doesn't prove notoriety.  Biel  23:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist per this new information and discussion.
 * Comment: There are a number of third-party manuals on how to use it which is an option for notability under WP:NSOFT. Is there precedent for how this is used? FiddleheadLady (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, lacks third-party reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do recall this thing being used a lot back in the days. Quite a surprise we can't find sources for it... Quick Googling does seem to find an RHEL manual and a pcmag reference, both of which may be useful for NSOFT. --Artoria2e5 🌉 15:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources mentioned at that discussion were: and . I suspect the PCmag (encyclopedia vaguely mentioned was .  So that's the WP:THREE for the moment.  I note in passing any technical expansion at the redirect would be WP:UNDUE. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment PCmag seems to be an encyclopedia.  Biel  talk  11:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Redirect to Hans Peter Anvin. I've looked pretty thuroughly for reliable and independent secondary sources and I really can't find much. The longest source I could find is this Engadget piece. SYSLINUX appears to be mentioned in a lot of tutorials, study guides, and manuals but even then it's mostly in passing. WP:NSOFT is an essay not a policy or guideline so I don't think it holds much weight in determining WP:N. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The key point remains about the WP:THREE key sources presented. The nom. has challenged only one of these - the implication to date is the other two are okay RS.  TipsyElephant has vaguewave looked for reliable choices but ignored specifically the one's presented; and suggested what I would regard as a poor choice of redirect which reveals insufficient investigation of the subject.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Trivial mentions do not contribute much towards the reliability of the subject. The article fails WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * the PC Mag source is a short enclyopedia entry and is therefore a tertiary source and does not contribute to WP:N. The CompTIA manual only mentions the word a few times in passing, and the little bit of material provided by the other book is not enough to write a good encylopedia page with WP:NOR. The WP:THREESOURCES (which is an essay btw) that you presented do not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. If my redirect choice is not the best option than please provide a better choice and I'll change my descision, but don't insult me by saying that it "reveals insufficient investigation of the subject." Would you prefer to redirect to Bootloader? TipsyElephant (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I totally refute that the sources are insufficient and there more than a passing mention at those places. SIGCOV and GNG passed.  Whether its a lot or not is subjective, and we can handbag all day on that.  Your case would be stronger if you'd specifically mentioned those before.  A mention such as: A list of bootloaders for Linux include Lilo, Grug, Grub2, SYSLINUX are a trivial mention.  I would not disagree that  bootloader is a better target, no disrespect to Hans Peter Anvin but I, and possibly other others, would have unfairly wished to pxe-boot in the arse on occasions with inanely long self tests only to reveal imperfect manual config. Despite what  said I did not really wish a relist at this time (REFUND ok, DRV at my convenience OK which is why I quickly took the PC mag reference.  The asture will note I added (Pakrashi, 2009)  to the article somewhat later so if the PC mag fails the everyones liking there's a another to specifically consider.  So I contnd SIGCOV an GNG is shown.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe the best thing to do is to merge with Bootloader or Hans Peter Anvin in order to try to preserve some of the content of the article. -- Biel  8729   14:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - A useful source for articulating how SYSLINUX fits into the history of Linux boot operations: Almesburger, Werner. "Booting Linux: The History and the Future" Proceedings of the Ottawa Linux Symposium. 2000. Suriname0 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with (Almesburger, 2000) in the context of this XfD discussion is I'm really seeing that at passing mention only for SYSLINUX. So not helpful here.  It might be okay over at e.g. Bootloader.  The problem is the future's past to some extend for that y2k document and the key wrestles of the day are now secure boot and EFI disks.  As an alternative I've added (Murphy, 2017a) as a source, haven't got round to leveraging it yet, but its good stuff and RS.  In particular is points to the 2017 problems with EFI and/or Secure boot if I remember correctly, but doesn't focus on the emerging solutions.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2021 (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.