Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 10: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:35, 10 June 2007

< June 9	June 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Segger Microcontroller Systems

Article is unverifiable with most edits coming from Info@segger-us.com, who is most likely an employee at Segger. WP:COI. The purpose of this article was to advertise Segger. Witchinghour 03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Witchinghour 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't forget the copyright image Image:Segger165x71.gif as well. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 03:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - who eats spam anyway? /Blaxthos 16:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG keep - a deletion spree by a person who does not bother to do a minimal bqackground check. `'юзырь:mikka 19:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - actually it was other admins who said to me that I'm welcome to do an AfD. please see Talk:Segger Microcontroller Systems. --Witchinghour 19:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also please take a minute to look at the histories of those pages thanks! --Witchinghour 19:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also bear in mind that I am NOT an admin. I can't delete anything, all I can do is propose. Other multiple admins agreed with those proposals and deleted all those pages. but you are the only one who reinstated them!. --Witchinghour 20:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I could only see one academic reference to the company; more reliable sources are needed. John Vandenberg 08:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Merges, edits, or additional sources, as suggeted by some in this discussion, are editorial issues, and do not need an AfD.DES ^(talk) 04:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Hills Software

The article doesn't assert it's notability. It's unverifiable and appears that it's purpose is to advertise the company. Witchinghour 03:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Witchinghour 03:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some secondary sources, which should go towards notability. While it may be a bit ad-like in places, I don't feel the overall article is an ad. The problems sections can be repaired. CitiCat 05:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: if the article is kept the current minutae listing of every feature should be radically trimmed down, also leaf articles like µ-velOSity should be merged here. The article lacks information about the history. Everyone can look up the current products on their website, the history is what's encyclopedically valuable. Pavel Vozenilek 11:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inline external links (or put in the EL section) do not reliable sources make. Perhaps if this article were properly referenced and trimmed significantly it would be a keep, but as it stands now it reads like an advertisement. /Blaxthos 16:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG keep - a deletion spree by a person who does not bother to do a minimal bqackground check. `'юзырь:mikka 19:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reply to user mikka here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segger Microcontroller Systems thanks.Witchinghour 19:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — with a conflict of interest on my part. ;) It looks to me like all of the embedded software articles follow the same basic format as the Green Hills Software article; see Wind River Systems, Segger Microcontroller Systems, MontaVista Software, ARM Limited. See VxWorks for one even further down the road to fancruftiness. I think it's just that there's not a lot to say about these tech companies except (1) where and who they are, which takes about two sentences; and (2) business cruft: who they compete with, how much they made last year, what their flagship products are, and other stuff that naturally looks very much like advertising. (Freescale Semiconductor is lucky enough to have had a buyout offer, so they can devote a section to that to make their article look less spammy. :) I do support merging µ-velOSity et al. into Green Hills Software. --Quuxplusone 04:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It isn't notably worse than any other company article and seems to meet WP:CORP. Henrik 07:03, 12

Delete per Nom. A backround check shows that this private company is not quoted on any stock exchange, and hence is only of interest to its owners and employees. Although this article is long, it is mainly comprised of lists of products, their components and attributes. Wikipedia is not an online catalogue, and spammy articles of this type with no encylopedic value should be speedily deleted. --Gavin Collins 16:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The company was somehow historically notable (which is not really shown in the text). I fully agree about the spammy nature of the article. Pavel Vozenilek 14:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Chaser - T 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rxart

Low-quality article on non-notable Linux distribution. Not clear if dead, since it seems there was a 3.0 release in 2006, but the website still talks about 2.0... Unreferenced, advertisement. Contains major misinformation ("Rxart was the best selling Spanish language GNU/Linux distribution in Latin America, having reached 350,000 units in 2005."). Chealer 02:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The nominator makes some very strong arguments. However, the article is interwiki-linked to four other languages. My personal opinion, quirky though it may be, is almost never to advise deletion of any article with valid interwiki links, especially if it's a foreign item and the interwiki article is in the native language for that item.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 June 2007
Delete - interwikilinks don't really trump an article with blatant misinformation, unverifiable claims, and stale content. /Blaxthos 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs improvement, but there are strong claims to notability on the article, and the distribution is definately not dead[1]; if I read this correctly, the distribution is being pre-installed on PC's. John Vandenberg 08:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DES ^(talk) 04:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while this may not be notable in the US, it does appear that this is fairly big news in latin america.Balloonman 04:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Google News hits suggest that it is not a particularly notable Linux distribution. The majority of normal Google hits seem to be for RxArt, an art organization. Provide reliable source featuring the distribution, or delete it. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Sr 13 04:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trangshi

Sparsely used neologism -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 02:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Google search shows few results, almost exclusively in conjunction with the book. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Also, it is a very, very short article of no particular use to the normal being, anyway, it doesn't need to be here. --Thekittybomb 02:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. The Korean version of the article is in worse shape, and the present English version bears striking similarity to the Japanese version, suggesting a parent-sibling relationship. Perhaps if one of these other-language versions matures, a better English version will re-emerge. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haansoft Linux

Non-notable Linux distribution. Possibly dead or merged with Asianux. Chealer 02:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article provides information that is referencable. As far as notable I don't believe I can say much, but with the information shown available, this article seems worth keeping. Redian (Talk) 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted in hopes of broader participation and clearer consensus. DES ^(talk) 20:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless third-party coverage can be found and used. FrozenPurpleCube 21:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The question is whether their Linux is as much used in Korea as their wordprocessor or whether "Haansoft" is yet another mee-too Linux distro nobody cares about. Pavel Vozenilek 22:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looking at the article on their word processor, I'm not sure that it does a good job of articulating its notability either. FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article may not, but, AFAIR, their editor managed to keep MS Word share of the market much smaller than just elsewhere else. Pavel Vozenilek 13:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of course it would be good to have third-party coverage, and it would be helpful if the company's own web site would clearly state that Haansoftlinux has been discontinued in favor of Asianux. So we make do with whatever hints and indirections we can find on the web. I found no mentions of Haansoftlinux with a date on them later than mid-2006. Here is a trade journal article from April 2007 that interviews a Haansoft official, who mentions Haansoft and Asianux, but doesn't use the word 'Haansoftlinux'. Some further circumstantial evidence: (1) If you try to open www.haansoftlinux.com, the site that opens up is www.asianux.co.kr. (2) On the haansoft.com web site, if you try to open up 'Haansoft Linux Desktop 2.0' you get an error. EdJohnston 01:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microlinux

Low-quality article on non-notable Linux distribution. I never heard about this distribution, and used Google to make sure. It is unfortunately virtually impossible to check the hits for "uL". I checked with "Microlinux", which gave under 10000 estimated hits. There may be a conflict of interest from the article creator, as uL creator. Chealer 02:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability it seems to be very unused, the article is of poor quality. Redian (Talk) 06:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. /Blaxthos 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Magioladitis 09:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Sr 13 06:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson tumewu

0 Ghits. If someone can verify the person/article, is he notable enough for entry here? 650l2520 01:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It turns out that there is a multimillionaire Indonesian businessman named Paulus Tumewu who is the chairman of a large retail corporation called Ramayana. [2] That matches part of the supposed biography of "Wilson Tumewu"'s father. But Paulus Tumewu is still alive and the corporation's name hasn't been changed. So this article is based on a false premise and should be deleted under WP:BLP, for portraying a living person as deceased. I have no idea whether Paulus Tumewu has a son named Wilson, but this can't be an accurate biography of the son if the son even exists. --Metropolitan90 02:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails BLP, if not a complete hoax. CitiCat 05:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete per jayvdb & citi. /Blaxthos 16:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Sr 13 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TinyLinux

Article doesn't establish notability. Chealer 00:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not every linux distro is inherently notable. BlaxthosSuperEliteLinux anyone? :-) /Blaxthos 16:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad to see these continuous AFD noms of linux distros are getting into articles that actually claim notability in some manner, but there are no independent sources provided to back it up. Someguy1221 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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, a small gathering of friends in a backyard, author has asserted inability to provide evidence of notability. Deiz talk 03:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Thricennial Festival of Kalahurkus

Ok, I seriously do not see the notability in the festival, but I didn't want to immediately tag it with a speedy delete. So the reason is: Notability of festival is not notable. Userpie^{talk to me!} 00:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Erm, I assume you mean, "Festival is not notable?" If the notability of the festival is notable, then I go, "Wha?" LaughingVulcan 00:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, fix'd. Userpie^{talk to me!} 01:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So this guy has a party three times a year in his backyard? How is that notable? Fails WP:ATT and WP:NOTE. --Charlene 00:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Delete, ~~speedy under A7 if possible.~~ Utterly unremarkable "group", article fails notability utterly. I'd recommend a friendly note on the creator's page, also. LaughingVulcan 00:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Withdrew speedy opinion request, per article creator below asking about time. LaughingVulcan 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that most of the world does not care about this festival, it is also true that it has become a major part of graduate life at the Math Department at the University of Texas, Austin. As a recreational activity, it deserves to stay on Wikipedia. For example, an article already exists for the game of flip cup, which is merely a drinking game. Not everyone cares about flip cup, but it's a recreational activity that people may be curious about. In the same manner, prospective graduate students or others may wonder what is the Thricennial Festival of Kalahurkas. This article serves that purpose.Salmanhb 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that no one cares, it's whether its notable or not. Userpie^{talk to me!} 01:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there are many festivals on Wikipedia already. I am not sure what makes them more notable than this one. I understand certain festivals are massive gatherings and obviously warrant notability. But that cannot be the only criterion. Granted this is a small festival among a collection of people in Austin, but I am unsure on why that disqualifies it being notable.Salmanhb 01:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consult Wikipedia:Notability, which is the guideline which establishes notability on Wikipedia. LaughingVulcan 01:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:Notability. It seems that the major issue is that I do not have independent sources to verify the existence, attendance or significance of the festival. As I say below, I am not an organizer nor an attendee (as of yet). I am expecting others who know more about the festival to contribute and add this other information. But one cannot expect that to happen instantaneously after I start the article. My intention was to set up an article and then have others more qualified than myself contribute and flush it. I thought this was in the spirit of Wikipedia.Salmanhb 01:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that this festival is still in its infancy, though over a hundred people have already attended. Many festivals start as small gatherings, but they blossom into something much larger. There is nothing to preclude this festival from following a similar path.Salmanhb 01:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources are provided and there are no Google hits for this event. This sounds like a private gathering not open to the public. --Metropolitan90 01:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just started this entry about an hour ago. I got tired of typing and did not write down any references. As far as Google goes, I am not the organizer and shouldn't be held responsible for the organizer not advertising. It is in fact a public event, but spreads mostly through word of mouth.Salmanhb 01:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should note that I have never attended a single festival. I have just been told about it and thought it warranted a Wikipedia entry.Salmanhb 01:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's still time to source it if you REALLY think you can save the article. Userpie^{talk to me!} 01:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any sources besides the email I received. I am just surprised that an article won't even survive a few days so that people can add to it. Frankly, I don't want to fight this to the death. My feeling is that an article about a small festival is worthy of surviving more than a few hours.Salmanhb 01:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, if you're insisting on deleting it ASAP, that's fine. I will just try to get all the information up and ready and try reposting once I have some sources.Salmanhb 01:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is an Articles for Deletion discussion, which usually lasts five days. The original nominator said that he didn't want to immediately tag it for speedy deletion (if he had done so, the article potentially might have been gone in a few minutes). So you do have "a few days", but if you want to turn the tide in favor of keeping the article, you are better off improving the article sooner rather than later. --Metropolitan90 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Salmanhb 02:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Speedied as something with a strong whiff of attack page. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elaineadillo

Looks like a hoax/joke. No results on Google that don't mention wikipedia. No-one would name a species "Elaineadillo" because Elaine is a girl's name so people would think it was a joke. Therefore, this article is most probably a joke article. greenrd 00:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could an armadillo-like animal even live in Ontario? Nyttend 00:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete: Armadillos in Canada and London??? Obviously a hoax and all searches on internet point back to this page. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 00:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Sr 13 07:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Towers

Doesn't meet WP:N or WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yechiel Man 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's not forget the user who created it's only edits are on the article. Mainly though is the above. Redian (Talk) 06:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 DES ^(talk) 03:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MuLinux

Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 00:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While no longer used, this version (yes I did some outside research) could fit on a floppy disk and install quickly, and be removed. I think that this determines its notability, whether or not its a dead distribution, it was a (big) step. Redian (Talk) 06:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely unreferenced & dead, and no, notability doesn't inherently exist for every linux distro. /Blaxthos 16:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I liked this old distro of Linux, I am going to say Delete. Other than an inclusion speech synthesis program, I don't see it as being notable: it isn't widely used; I don't think it has been in the news or newspaper. As much as I would like it to stay, Wikipedia isn't a directory. Perhaps there could be an article made that has a brief description of all the tiny Linux Distros? Madd the sane 19:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Sr 13 00:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FDLinux

Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above. Non-notable, not enough references.
Delete - Unreferenced & nonnotable. /Blaxthos 16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete on grounds that this is pure spam. This article should have been deleted by the author years ago on grounds of obsolescence. --Gavin Collins 10:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly non notable and probably a hoax Xtreme racer 20:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. DES ^(talk) 20:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FloppyFW

Stub on non-notable project. Chealer 00:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A scan of search results from Google reveals no appropriate sources that would tend to estabilish a requisite level of notability. Erechtheus 01:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term returns 54000 Google hits; and here's a NewsForge article comparing it to Coyote Linux. akuyume^T_C 09:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced stub. /Blaxthos 16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of refs proving notability. Jacek Kendysz 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fixit, appears to be a current and useful Linux firewall distribution, with an update release this year. Ace of Risk 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 withdrawn. Deiz talk 04:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Hanna

Kind of a test case, User:Earl Andrew is clearly very knowlegeable about Canadian curling but has created and edited a great number of articles which strike me as being of questionable notability. This particular article is an unsourced biography of a curler who is clearly competent and plays at a national level, yet doesn't appear to have achieved anything notable. Deiz talk 03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Competed at the highest level in amateur sports in her country, the national championship of Canadian curling. Has won one Grand Slam tournament. Seems to me she passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 03:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely if the nom admits that she plays 'at a national level' then by Wikipedia standards that's notable? The fact that it's unsourced isn't a reason for deletion, merely tagging for sources, and reading the article I see no evidence that anything in it is actually untrue. Curling may not be a huge sport in the world but I see no reason to delete people who play at a high level in it simply because of that. Nick mallory 03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've left the author a note on his talk page. I would advise that this page not be deleted before he has a chance to respond. Yechiel Man 04:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segger Microcontroller Systems}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Hills Software}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rxart}}