- 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. Based on the consensus here, prior recreations and confirmed socking, I've protected from recreation for 1 year. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortress Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No independent reliable sources supporting a neutral and verifiable article, no indication that this passes WP:GNG. Possibly self-promotional article pushed by the coders of the distro looking for broader publicity, borderline WP:SPAM. MLauba (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:SPAM --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find any news coverage and it's not even
available for downloadreleased yet. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Delete - Prior to making this vote I was forced by conscience (no, not you MLauba, my own conscience) to make a report at SPI. I find it worth noting that at least four different accounts [related to the closed SPI]
have tried to add or makemade positive edits to this article (or its two deleted brethren) in the recent past, the text emanating from these accounts being identical in many cases. My concern with the article is that even once it has risen above about a dozen different concerns (ranging from WP:SPAM to WP:COI and lots in between) it won't hit WP:N or even anywhere in the neighborhood. For this post I'd rather use thumb rules for this vote than citing specific passages of relevant documentation. Much as the simple thumb rule Explodicle uses above, my thumb rule is "Can you make it on to Distrowatch?" Since Distrowatch's standards for notability (whatever those may be) are 'generally somewhat' lower than Wikipedia's, if you can't make on there, you're probably not going to make it on here. Fortress Linux is nowhere to be found on Distrowatch. The notability comparison I'm using (merely as a guideline) is based on List of Linux distributions vs. Linux Distributions - Facts and Figures. Once you make Distrowatch, then maybe you can come back and try to make WP. Because of theassertionfact that multiple accounts thatseem to beare the same person copying and pasting the same text from the fortresslinux web site to this article in the recent past, and the article has already been deleted twice this month alone, in addition to a 'delete' vote I also propose a WP:SALT. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call. I agree that we should salt. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor addendum: The SP Investigation has closed and archived. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Salt as well, this is some viral marketing nonsense now. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For your information, Fortress Linux is availiable for download if you join them. And the reason why it's is not on the Distrowatch list, is because there is a waiting list for at least six months at Distrowatch to even join that list. —Johan82(talk) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertising. And per Explodicle, no RS coverage found. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - relevant checkuser report here - closing admin please note - Alison ❤ 05:44, 24 October 2009 (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.