Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinfoil Hat Linux (3rd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Tinfoil Hat Linux
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Little to no notability— this article's only source is a FAQ by the creators of the distribution and the only relevant sources I've been able to find related to this distro are just copies of this page from other wikis. Dawnbails (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet,  and Software. Dawnbails (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google book search turns up a couple of additional sources, including . Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Book sources are two magazines that belong to the same company and two books that briefly mention its existence. Dawnbails (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Part of Internet history. An early attempt at proveding strong security to ordinary uses.--agr (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: There's a majority of editors wanting to Keep this article but little work being done to improve sourcing which was mentioned as the primary problem in the nominator's statement. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weakest keep it's not well-sourced at the moment, but I'm finding a very small number of reviews and mentions in books - predominantly AUUG, but also two scholarly articles and a Slashdot review - that could potentially be added to the article. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep I've added the scholarly refs, the magazine ref, and the slashdot ref (which is a minor secondary ref, and actually has a good primary ref deeper in it which, if the key can be verified, could be used for attributed quotes). I've left inline citations as an exercise for the reader. &mdash;siro&chi;o 10:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, per siroxo's excellent work. See you all back here in 2027 for nomination #4, I suppose. -- Visviva (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2023 (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.