Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phrealon

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 of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phrealon

Phrealon appears to be non-notable software. It only gets 103 original Google results, some of which are just lists. -- Kjkolb 09:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. distrocruft. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Not enough participation here. Relisting to encourage more. -Splash^talk 00:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability is established. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Linux distros are notable, IMHO. Is there a policy that states otherwise? (distrocruft?)Borisblue 02:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough, imo. It's not nonsense or anything, and it's not hurting anyone or taking up space for no reason.--Qirex 07:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's my concern. I think its important that we be evenhanded with respect to types of software. I know that this isn't exactly "advertisment" in the sense that an entry here will increase revenue or anything. I am worried that keeping every entry on an open source project, but deleting most entries on companies or commercial products constitutes bias in the encyclopedia. When I read the article, I thought "would I accept this if it was a purely commercial enterprise" and I said no. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am GNU/Linux fanatic, but then not all distros are notable enough to find a mention in Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 11:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What's the policy on this? I find it hard to believe that we can make space for Pokemon moves and not for an OS. Borisblue 15:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

We've already got an excellent article on this OS, at Linux. This is just another packaging of that OS and a bunch of utilities on a bootable CD image. --Carnildo 05:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nn-distro. If someone can assert (and prove) notability on the level of Dyne:bolic I'd be willing to change my vote.--Isotope23 15:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Distrowatch lists approximately 350 distros, and this isn't one of them. Doesn't appear to be distinguished in any way from the hundreds of bootable-cd distros already out there. --Carnildo`
• Delete, I don't think it's a very popular or notable distribution per Distrowatch and Carnildo. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please just because it is not popular does not mean people might want to know about it and we are supposed to be the sum of all knowledge so why should we erase this Yuckfoo 03:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable enough for its own article. Can be merged with some other article perhaps and be made into a redirect, but not enough to stand on its own. Qaz ^(talk) 04:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per carnildo, inter alia. Dottore So 05:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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.