Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live USB system creator

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. WP:V is policy, and says that if we can't find reliable sources on a topic, as here, we shouldn't have an article about it. WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT are also weak arguments if nobody has bothered to write about it in a reliable source.  Sandstein  17:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live USB system creator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No references to reliable sources, no demonstration of the significance of the subject matter. Googling "Live USB system creator" -Wikipedia results in a mere 42 unique hits, indicating this program has not attracted sufficient attention. Garrett^Talk 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It was THE first tool for Ubuntu, that allowed the creation of Live USBs, just because it has not much coverage, does not make it suitable for deletion, besides Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability are just guidelines, not policy. I think deleting it would be a mistake. Jerebin (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article needs serious work, sure, but it is also true that it was one of the first graphical tool to create Ubuntu Live USBs. SF007 (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Keep arguments seem to be based on the program's utility. It could cure cancer, but if it hasn't been covered in reliable sources sufficient to establish its notability, it shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. If the fact that those are guidelines bothers you (it shouldn't, guidelines are important), consider that this article also fails WP:V, which is a policy. gnfnrf (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines don't bother me, and regarding WP:V, this article does not make any extraordinary claims, like having the cure for cancer, something that would of course require proper sources. I just don't understand deleting an article just because trivial information that anyone can prove can't be found on "reliable sources"... It is even recommended at the Ubuntu wiki [1]! It just makes me sad to see articles about good software go away, just because of notability issues, even if the software is excelent (not saying that's the case!), it really doesn't make sense to me... Jerebin (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom and Gnfnrf. This program may have great utility but if it has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications, well, sorry, its not ready for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Try Wikia instead. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jerebin. It's useful, therefore it helps. Shouldn't we keep things that help the encyclopedia? Coastalsteve984 (talk) 06:33, 20 November 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.