Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabily


 * 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. No arguments for deletiopn aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sabily

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No external sources showing public interest and thus notability. Since it's easy to extend ubuntu with some open-source software to make it 'themish', there is nothing special about exactly this distro. The external links show nothing but the fact that this distro exists. Peni (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Per, , (under previous name),  (under previous name),  (under previous name),  (under previous name), and  (under previous name). Joe Chill (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Three of these reviews are in the article so it already passed WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it's sufficient, since the sites only state the existence or the release of this OS. It is obviously only due to the thematic binding to Islam, which is the actual point of interest for the media. I thought, WP:SOFT WP:N would require a dedicated interest by a specialized source (not like vesti.bg) and not a pure "mentioning" in overview and comparison articles. --Peni (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't only state the existence. Only stating the existence would be like a page in a directory, a download page, or a sentence or two. These are news stories and reviews. A trivial mention would only state the existence. Reviews and new stories are not trivial mentions and they are reliable sources. WP:SOFT is about Mediawiki software. With all of these sources, there is no chance of this article being deleted. These sources have always shown notability per WP:N. If you're referring to the Computer World article as a trivial mention, just being reviewed on the same page doesn't automatically make it a trivial mention. The coverage in the article is eight paragraphs. Joe Chill (talk)
 * WP:N doesn't even say "specialized sources". What do you mean by specialized sources? This type of websites have always been acceptable in the hundreds of AFDs that I participated in. Joe Chill (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Its mentioned there.  Notable.   D r e a m Focus  07:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Per this article in the Palestine Telegraph. Comte0 (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus and Comte0, is that all that you think shows notability? Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose they mean those alone are enough to show notability. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Read through that one, and then glanced at the rest listed.  Didn't think there a reason to read through all the sources, that one alone enough to prove it.   D r e a m Focus  13:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Reviewed in several reliable sources. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2009 (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.