Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newgrounds Linux

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. deletion requested by author: [1] HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newgrounds Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Notability not asserted; references insufficient; recreated of page speedily deleted as advert/spam Yworo (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Userfy as creator of the article. Rohedin (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not convinced that prohibits you from expressing an opinion of support/keep. It would also be a good opportunity for you to assert notability. Incidentally, I'm tending towards delete, because I'm not seeing how it's notable - at this point. Convince me! TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the best I could provide are sources consisting of websites that copy videos and text to make it seem like it is related to the subject. At best, this article was just a poor man's attempt at a Linux article and I wouldn't mind it being moved back to it's user space until it ages and possibly gain some form of notability. Rohedin (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this was deleted as non-notable before and this version is virtually completely identical and still non-notable. This distro is not even listed on DistroWatch. Furthermore it is WP:SPAM and was created by the initiator of the subject which is a WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no third-party references, no indication whatsoever of notability, no explanation why this is relevant in any way. --Jerebin (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as the author has !voted userfy, couldn't we simply userfy the article and speedy close this with a delete? TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 21:50, 5 June 2010 (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.