Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon OS
- 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. Michig (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Moon OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Prod was declined and on the article's talk page a few sources were given as rationale, but they largely consisted of wordpress blogs and the like. The only two sources that even begin to show notability are this and this, both for the same release, with nothing else to show.
Per WP:NSOFT the mere existence of reviews does not show notability, and only two such sources does not even meet WP:GNG and comes nowhere close to meeting WP:NSOFT. Aoidh (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I checked a bunch of sites, but I didn't see anything for either "MoonOS" or "Moon OS". Best I could find was this review at OMG Ubuntu, which strikes me as probably unreliable, as the "about us" page lists no staff or editorial team. Moon OS shows up in blogs occasionally, and there are some reader comments at the bigger tech sites, but that seems to be about it. If someone else can find reviews that I missed, I'm willing to reconsider. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Yet another minor/obscure Linux distribution. It is so easy to start a Linux distribution just by forking an existing one, as has apparently been done here. References to reliable sources are required to demonstrate notability, but none have been provided. I tried looking for some and couldn't find anything significant. SJK (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability established by sources cited by nom. Per WP:NSOFT, "It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software". ~Kvng (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- You left out the most important part of that quote: "It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown." None of the sources even begin to make the claim that the software is significant in any way. It's not notable, and it's not significant, so the part of WP:NSOFT you quoted does not support keeping the article. The citation at the end of that quoted passage also says that "Notability, not existence, must be established by such citations..." which hasn't been done. The sources provided show that the software exists, not that it is significant in any way. Routine coverage of patch notes by sites that make a point to cover all such things are not indicative of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I know what notable means. In a WP policy sense, what does significance mean? ~Kvng (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- What does it matter? WP:NSOFT is an essay. I could write an essay that says open source software requires high quality sources and cite it here. There's no consensus to allow open source software to get away with unreliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I asked because it seemed to matter to you in your previous response. I appreciate your point on policy vs. essay though. ~Kvng (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- What does it matter? WP:NSOFT is an essay. I could write an essay that says open source software requires high quality sources and cite it here. There's no consensus to allow open source software to get away with unreliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I know what notable means. In a WP policy sense, what does significance mean? ~Kvng (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- You left out the most important part of that quote: "It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown." None of the sources even begin to make the claim that the software is significant in any way. It's not notable, and it's not significant, so the part of WP:NSOFT you quoted does not support keeping the article. The citation at the end of that quoted passage also says that "Notability, not existence, must be established by such citations..." which hasn't been done. The sources provided show that the software exists, not that it is significant in any way. Routine coverage of patch notes by sites that make a point to cover all such things are not indicative of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete at best because my searches found nothing noticeably better and the current article is still questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 27 March 2016 (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.
