Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnu distribution
- 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. Canley (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gnu distribution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
POV fork of Linux distribution / GNU variants. Contested prod. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleteper nom. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as misnamed. Arguably, GNU distribution could be a redirect to Linux distribution, or even more arguably that could be moved to GNU/Linux distribution and both could redirect there. I really don't know or care enough about the history of that particular controversy to give a view. I do know however that an article entitled Gnu distribution should either be about the distribution of Gnus (they're migratory so it varies with the time of year, but I doubt a separate article is justified) or about a hitherto unknown probability distribution first described by Dr. Gnu (the mathematician and friend of Flanders and Swann, gnot to be confused with Dr. No or Dr. Who). Qwfp (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC;-)
- Delete per submitter comments. ~~ [Jam][talk] 12:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. I think this information should be included in an appropriate article (if possible). But as a standalone article, absolutely worthless. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Qwfp's humorous but accurate rationale. I wouldn't object to moving it to GNU distribution, then redirecting to Linux distribution, but that seems a little excessive just to maintain a POV fork's history. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. This is the second time Chris and I agree. --mms (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2008 (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.