Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowdog Updater, Modified

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowdog Updater, Modified

edit
Yellowdog Updater, Modified (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for 2.5 years. Existence is not notability. MSJapan (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC) MSJapan (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a reference to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux documentation, which should be third-party since Red Hat did not itself invent Yum. Instead of deletion, I think this article can be compressed to a section in the article RPM Package Manager, since it is a front-end to that. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this one is probably more notable than most others? W Nowicki (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "what makes this one worthy of inclusion?" Yum is is one of the oldest package managers (updater and server repository), it solves the problems of the old APT-RPM, and replaces Up2date. Currently is popular in RPM based distributions (Fedora, RedHat Enterprise Linux, RedHat Linux (Discontinued), Centos, SuSe, OpenSuse...). It is as apt-get in deb's distros. Was historically covered by specialized sites like Linux Foundation and IBM.--GM83 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aren't the existence of Wikipedia is to transfer information itself? How can we say that it is not notable if it is the longest "community supported" software that is inside almost all Red Hat, CentOS, Fedora or it's derivatives? I'm suggesting that the article is kept but will be *rewritten* or *combined* with RPM Package Manager -- Farizluqman (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although of course the true measure of notability is having reliable independent sources. The fact that is out-lived Yellow Dog itself and documentation is so often replicated by so many other distributions should be enough. Although the article clearly does need help, sigh.
I had some time so tried to work on this. Just do a google book search and there are hundreds of hits. I added a few. The article oddly has a complain tag saying someone should add material from the German article, but that article has even fewer sources! It does have some screen shots, so added one from Commons (others are on the German Wikipedia, sigh). Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Vidal a person who might have notability, or might be limited since he was mostly known as a key developer of yum. Perhaps if we merged the two, it would be even more solidly notable. Or merge Yellowdog Updater into this one, since that one is a permastub (the original never really caught on apparently). W Nowicki (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yellowdog_Updater,_Modified&oldid=1071617463"