Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubuntu Satanic Edition

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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Satanic Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a desktop theme, no more notable than anything on freshmeat. Twinxor t 04:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think this desktop theme is notable enough. TSO1D 04:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under A7. NN web content. Pop Secret 05:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. Wouldn't qualify as web content, I don't think. MER-C 05:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails both WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB. SkierRMH,07:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't think specific desktop themes are notable. JIP | Talk 11:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a desktop theme as of right now, but it will become a distro of its own later. It's a new project, give it some time. EliasAlucard|Talk 16:28, 15 Dec, 2006 (UTC)
  • Things that might become notable in the future are rarely appropriate at the moment; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it becomes notable, the article can always be recreated then. --ais523 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's just a desktop theme that's wandering around on the net. Though I agree that if it becomes a distro it should be recreated.--Jonnylinuxnerd 16:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on its userbase and unique features, of course, but I wonder what would be notable about such a distro. Right now, I could distribute a version of Ubuntu with this desktop theme included, but it not seem to be significant. Twinxor t 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. Dragomiloff 22:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep See if it evoles to be a good article, it's unfair to delete something based on a stub. This has gotten alot of attention in it's lifespan, and is certainly noticeable. And it may "only be a theme" on the site, but that's because there's nowhere to host a 666Mb file, so donations are being taken for a server, etc. It's not doing anyone any harm, it should stay. Matt 01:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, there's no evidence of a significant community or notable features in the distro. Twinxor t 09:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. Doczilla 01:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it seems tp be popular within the Ubuntu comunity, and it's still a stub. - CchristianTehWazzit
• Delete It isn't notable right now. Maybe it will be at some point in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —ShadowHalo 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in oppose to Ubuntu Christian Edition. Duality is what Wikipedia needs for a better NPOV. --Ragnarok Addict 15:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be a case of false balance. A topic is not notable because it parodies something notable. Twinxor t 02:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This smells strongly of censorship on religious grounds. The fact that it's very existence has generated this much debate justifies it's inclusion - Cathbard 18:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. No evidence of notability in the stub. A "censorship on religious grounds" in an AfD discussion itself does not give notability.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 'This article or section contains information about scheduled or expected future software.' How many articles are there on Wikipedia with this headline? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.6.176.89 (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • No one's suggesting the article is to be deleted on that basis. Twinxor t 05:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One sentence plus an external link to the releasers. With only one link, it just escapes WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, but it appears to be spam. There isn't enough content to be a valid stub. GRBerry 04:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely non-notable. Keeping solely because we have Ubuntu Christian Edition is entirely invalid. --- RockMFR 00:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ubuntu Christian Edition. I'm boldly adding a sentence to that article noting its existence. WMMartin 20:21, 20 December 2006 (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.