Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devuan

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. Wifione ^Message 10:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devuan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSOFT. Only a proposed software fork at this point. Not yet notable. PROD declined by an IP. I would respond to the IP's reasoning by invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Safiel (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoneME. There's no indication of notability beyond the current news cycle here; an eventual redirect (whether to Debian or to systemd) will probably be added in due course, but that's all that this warrants. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that different from GoneME, there are articles from many different sources about Devuan and it is a manifestation of a larger political backlash against activities around systemd. Before deleting, it might be wiser to wait whether this prophecy of Devuan being shortlived actually comes true.85.212.86.124 (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only difference is that the ecosystem of sites that would pick up news like this within a given cycle has grown substantially since then. Regardless, this is presently content-free, and in the unlikely even that the subject later becomes notable the article can be trivially recreated from scratch. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NSOFT Complies with "The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field." The Register, PCWorld, and others like Phoronix, ITWire, Softpedia can be found searching devuan. Anyway, it is necessary to update and rewrite the article, it is not a proposed software, it is being developed at Github.--GM83 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't vote because I'm biased (plus I have no sense of formalism), but I would like to note that Linux journalism is rather scatterbrained. Each new release of Fedora gets fanfare. Every slip from some Microsoft executive is trumpeted far and wide. A lot of sources are just trying, from day to day, to find something - anything - to say. If systemd debates fuel their writing, then they'll spawn as many articles as they can to pander like gossip magazines at a grocery checkout. While development is active, there's a lot of betting up in the air as to how long they can sustain a whole distribution with their manpower. That said, it's true that they have a substantial presence in the form of third-party sources. It's entirely possible they will become very notable in a few month's time. Danny Sepley (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) @ 20:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Sufficient coverage now exists in WP:RS to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2014 (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.