Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SYS Linux

SYS Linux

Non-notable Linux distro. Was tagged WP:CSD#A7 but that speedy deletion criterion does not apply as it is not a person, organization, or web content (except in the broadest interpretation of web content). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions

Delete - No independent reviews. People should keep in mind that this is different to SYSLINUX, which has something to do with a floppy disk linux image. Does not seem to exist outside the references included in the article, and Google has no external incoming links to the reference site. A google for '"Werner Landgraf" "SYS Linux" gets suspiciously few hits. -- Mark Chovain 09:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Reading the very last paragraph in the article, I guess the author mis-understood the purpose of Wikipedia somewhat, it's specifically not trying to be a directory on all possible Linux distributions. --Minimaki (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would love to say keep in this article if there are reliable secondary sources that this article is important. By reading the distro is distributed by hand, put the download link, the 0.20 version was released 3 days ago!, etc., makes me feel that the subject is not yet ready to have a wikipedia article. Dekisugi (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just don't see notability demonstrated here due to lack of reliable sources.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Life is not fair, and if secondary sources do not exist, neither is Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host nor is it a platform for advertising. We require reliable secondary sources for a reason: as Torchwood Who points out, Wikipedia is intended as a research tool. Oh, and writing about things in which you are personally involved is frowned upon. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 21:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not for lack of effort, but a lack of reliabe sources about this distribution TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not make the cut for notability per lack of third party comment and refs. Halfmast (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep W.landgraf: The text of your article has been modified and included in the docdroppers article on Lesser known Linux Distros due to the significance of a fully automated install process. Best of luck keeping it on wikipedia :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miserablyeverafter (talk • contribs) 07:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Delete. Isn't "your own software project" on the list of bad article ideas? Guy (Help!) 09:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources presented. --Fredrick day 14:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with primary article editor

Hallo Herr Landgraf

Ich weiß nicht, ob Sie es schon bemerkt haben, aber Sie haben eine eigene Diskussionsseite, und einige Leute haben schon versucht, Sie dort zu kontaktieren.

I don't know if you have noticed already, but you have your own talk page, and some people have already tried to contact you there.

(This does not belong here, but please leave this message here for a while to make this user aware that he has a talk page.) --Hans Adler (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]