Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 01:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Everything Linux

• Delete - This article fails the Company inclusion guidelines. The company retails Linux. There has been some discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, however, it came to no conclusion. There are a number of other companies with similar notability. I believe that if this shop retailed lingerie or books it would be deleted, retailing computer software, even Linux, should not be treated differently. The article is an advertisement currently freely hosted by Wikipedia. User:AYArktos | Talk 21:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Is this a single retail outlet or a chain? Delete if former, keep if latter. Not perfectly clear in entry. Marskell 21:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep based on below. Why don't you expand this Chug to note the on-line importance/success? Marskell 21:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Because I don't have any stats or references to back it up. I *know* it is, but that doesn't really help. I'm working on it :P -- Chuq 22:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is an online retailer as well as a shop front. So far as the online side of it goes, it also happens to be one of the largest in Australia - I can only think of two (this and LSL) off the top of my head. (If someone wants to write about one of the countries biggest lingerie or bookstore, such as Bras N Things or Angus & Robertson, that would probably be less likely to be nominated for deletion as they have a bigger market than an online Linux store.) -- Chuq 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Additional comment - although no published statistics are available, I believe it would pass Company inclusion guideline #4. -- Chuq 22:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Guideline 4 can be met by almost any corner shop for a suitably narrow definition of "market area". Bras N Things and Angus & Robertson are both chains/franchises, not a single store. The chain may be notable, but an individual shopfront is not. The best argument I've heard for notability for this one is if it can really be a profitable business running on online store selling freely-downloadable software! --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Revoked delete vote based on expansion --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• • "Market area" in this case is "Australia" - wide enough? This isn't just a single corner shop somewhere - it is an online retailer - therefore its market/scope is as wide as a nationwide chain. -- Chuq 02:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • (Answering since you felt ignored below) Their website claims their market area is the entire western Pacific including China and Japan. If I want a book about Debian Linux (for example), I'll shop at a bookshop. If I want Debian Linux, I go to debian.org and download it (or install online). If the article is extended to show how they can make a profit from selling things online that people can just as easily download for free, then I might change my vote. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
      • People who don't have broadband; people who have low quotas; people who like the fancy pressed CDs; people who want to try several different distros and would rather receive the CDs overnight instead of wait for a week to download them all; people who want to purchase one of ELX's custom people who want a distro AND a book, or other merchandise in one order; people who want to buy hardware guaranteed to work with Linux; but seeing as they have been in business for 6 years, I don't think discussing their business model is really relevant - it obviously works fine for them and several others. -- Chuq 00:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no indication/proof that this meets Guideline 4. It definatley doesnt meet any other guideline. Agnte 11:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Additional comment (moved from above because it appear people didn't see it) - this is VERY informal research, but of 7 out of 12 10 out of 16 people who replied to my post on an Australian Linux forum said Everything Linux was the first Linux retailer they thought of. It shows high notability in it's target market (Australian Linux users) Very informal, but 62.5% is a lot higher than 20%. -- Chuq 02:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. at least the article does not mention anything encyclopaedic in it. Xtra 00:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the article still needs much improving. Xtra 06:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Chug, prove it. Marskell 00:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have commented/replied to many of the objections here, but been ignored. I don't want to repeat myself, but I will. 62.5% of Australian Linux users, when asked to name a Linux online retailer, name Everything Linux as the first and sometimes only one they know. Yes, its a very small sample size, but 62.5% is significant, qualifies (for me) as the biggest in the country, and implies that the store definitely passes company inclusion guideline #4. It's a bit hard to prove what is common knowledge in a certain circle, but no-one has gone out of their way to prove in the past. This might help: [1] -- Chuq 12:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is the only linux retailer I know of within Australia. I have bought from them several times. The article should be expanded instead of being removed, it definatelty has a large percentage of the market within it's niche. --Martyman-(talk) 02:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: significant Australian Linux shop. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete reads like an ad, looks like an ad. Nothing noteworthy in the article. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:21, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.