Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux Software Map

Linux Software Map

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Linux Software Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Obscure topic without 3RR or importance Greatder (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are a few articles written by a single group: [1], [2], plus some other coverage: [3], [4], [5]. Even though the first group of sources shares roughly the same authors, and the second group of sources doesn't contain a lot of coverage, the sources should demonstrate bare notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Helpful Raccoon Wikipedia is not a manual(Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples.

  These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity.) ref 1 is a passing mention, 3,4 has only one paragraph. 5 is just using the map to find licenses not treating the topic independently. Reference 2 details what LSM is and how they used it, but again wikipedia is not a manual and shouldn't have article on every single topic that is required to publish a software. It is better situated in perhaps Wikibook. Greatder (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The first source is not just a passing mention, it contains plenty of coverage in pages 5-7. However, I'm just now seeing that ref 1 states that this group is closely connected to a major repository that uses LSM, the UNC MetaLab Linux Archives. That's enough to throw independence into doubt, so I'm withdrawing my keep vote. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]