Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SlimPup 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 no consensus with WP:NPASR. Before doing so though, consider merging to Puppy Linux or a list of Puppy Linux based distributions.  So Why  15:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

SlimPup Linux

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, less than 2000 search results on Google, also reads very promotional. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. It was a very popular distribution in the Puppy Linux community during its time. It was one of the few Crunchbang-styled Puppy-based operating systems with some interesting goals behind it. The sourceforge page has well over 20k downloads. -  O vine1  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears that you have just forged my signature because it still links to my contribs and logs page, please read WP:SIGFORGE and change your signature, regards. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep A single google search isn't a particularly good rationale for a WP:AFD nomination. I don't see anything wrong with the article, with two readings. As a historical article of an older type of Linux distribution, it well worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not only cite a Google search, your vote did not address the issue of notability that I also address in my deletion rationale, if you have any evidence to the contrary, please state that. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment @Champion, That is what you said in the AFD rationale above. less than 2000 search results and it reads like a WP:PROMO. It is not promotional, after two reads, and as a historical article on a Linux distribution, at a time, when many of these types of distros were being created for very specific and niche requirements, in an early and busy period of Linux history, clearly provides historical context, and I think is good encyclopedic knowledge. You don't see the value in it, nor the enormous creative effort it takes to make these things. It is off historical value, and worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Saying that the article possesses "historical value" is not a reason against deletion, whether this has any so-called "value" of any kind is a matter of personal opinion and nothing else in this case as that is not discussed in RS. You did not explain why it is notable, and the only mentions I could find were trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources, hence this is an obvious WP:GNG fail, it also fails the criteria listed at WP:NSOFT.  -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Its you that doesn't want to take on the arguments that I'm putting forward. The whole purpose of knowledge is to provide history, which is the whole purpose of WP and this article provides it. It is solid encyclopedic knowledge, and easily passes WP:GNG. WP:NSOFT isn't a formal WP policy. WP:BADNAC is a good policy. scope_creep (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 05:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:41, 19 September 2017 (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.