- 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. Sandstein 19:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cubuntu (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)
No significant coverage. I find part of the article ironic "As a result, Cubuntu is a relatively unknown Linux distribution.". Or redirect to Kubuntu as {{R from typo}}. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, it has two independent third party refs that are extensive write-ups, not just passing mentions. - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Which ones? [1] for instance may be independent but unless high-profile, blogs are generally not reliable. [2] was edited by "kranich" so it is likely the creator. Tigraan (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Softpedia is an independent reliable source and the two Softpedia refs cited profile the subject in some detail, this and this one. This meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am behind a firewall that censors, so I cannot check that right now, but as Softpedia is a download site, I doubt that it is a WP:RS. (Moreover, I would argue that two articles from the same website do not really count as "multiple sources".) Tigraan (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Softpedia is a reliable software news site with independent editorial oversight. I agree though that the two articles are from the same news source, so that is not "multiple independent sources". - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am behind a firewall that censors, so I cannot check that right now, but as Softpedia is a download site, I doubt that it is a WP:RS. (Moreover, I would argue that two articles from the same website do not really count as "multiple sources".) Tigraan (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Softpedia is an independent reliable source and the two Softpedia refs cited profile the subject in some detail, this and this one. This meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Which ones? [1] for instance may be independent but unless high-profile, blogs are generally not reliable. [2] was edited by "kranich" so it is likely the creator. Tigraan (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete unless sources that pass WP:42 are found, as I could not find them (top search results are WP mirrors). Tigraan (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as searches are finding nothing particularly better about this and the current article is still seemingly questionable, delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 6 April 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.