Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustix (2nd 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  04:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Trustix
AfDs for this article:


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

Non-notable Linux distribution with almost no reliable sources available DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  06:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  12:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy invitation to the active partcipants of the last AfD. Pavlor (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: no sources to establish notability. Also delete its redir, Trustix Secure Linux. The non-admin AfD closure in 2008 was improper, and shouldn't be a factor now anyway. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Although it did bring up two potential sources, one of which points to a third. They're not very good, in my view, having a whiff of a warmed-up press release about them, but we shouldn't be outright ignoring what was brought up, otherwise this is no better a discussion than last time.  Uncle G (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - Article fails the relevant notability criteria (WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, WP:NSOFT). I couldn't find much of anything beyond the two sources mentioned in the previous AfD. This reads like churnalism/native advertising and while it may or may not be, the other reference being a routine coverage of an acquisition announcement is very specifically trivial coverage, and the only sources I could find outside of what was discussed in the previous AfD was coverage of the aquisition which again is trivial and does not contribute to notability. - Aoidh (talk) 03:55, 13 December 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.