Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automatix (software)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Renominate individually if necessary, as provided by some opinions below. —Kurykh 20:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatix (software)

Automatix (software) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, but the important word there is encyclopedia. Often when searching in Google for fairly obscure free software products I'm surprised to find Wikipedia articles in existence, but almost always - of course - written in a "howto" tone and without citations. One has already been deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uberyl) and I'm nominating several more here. The bottom line is that free software or not, articles must be on encyclopedic subjects (WP:NOT), neutral (WP:NPOV), and based on reliable sources (WP:RS). They must not be "howto" guides nor promotional. I contend that none of the following make the grade:

  • Automatix (software) - a shell script for installing non-standard packages on Ubuntu Linux. Site is down.
  • EasyUbuntu - another installation script
  • Ichthux, Ubuntu Christian Edition - "Christian" forks of Ubuntu Linux. There are many other probably not notable Ubuntu forks with articles (see {{Ubuntu-distro}}), let these test the waters.
  • Jesux, Yellow Hat GNU/Linux - fictional/hoax Linux distributions --kingboyk 15:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment This is too crude to be considered like this. These articles are not written as "howto"s. Automatix and EasyUbuntu are controversial in Ubuntu circles. Ichthux was a more official (and KDE) response to the hype surrounding Ubuntu Christian edition. I think the only ones these could fail is notability. However I think they are fine. Secretlondon 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would reject all of the proposals on the grounds that the AfD is nothing more than vandalism. If there were legitimate reasons to AfD any of the articles, the AfDs would be filed individually, and not as a group. Instead of flagging those articles with an AfD tag, the nominator should have gone to the discussion page of each of those articles, and listed each and every item of each and every policy that s/he alleges the articles fails to meet. Of course that takes far more work than a simple AfD request, but that lack of effort on their part to make a good faith effort to fix the articles is proof that they are vandals, with a total lack of interest in improving Wikipedia.jonathon 00:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. These articles are not written in a 'how-to' like way, and I think they are reasonably NPOV and also reasonably notable at least in Linux circles. Admittedly they are improvable though. ajdlinux 07:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand any issues we should have with an encyclopedia containing obscure terms. An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge, and justifiably should contain obscure articles that people may want to gain information about. In any case, at least one (Automatix) is not obscure in Ubuntu circles. ashish.vashisht
  • Comment. I'd recommend withdrawing this nomination and renominating some of these articles separately. Jesux and Yellow Hat look like pretty strong deletes, but bundling them with real-but-maybe-nn products confuses the issue. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the developer of Ubuntu Christian Edition I, of course, disagree with the deletion of my projects entry on Wikipedia. I do not believe the entry for Ubuntu Christian Edition is written as a how-to and there is plenty of documentation of my projects existence. It has developed a larger following than most "obscure" Linux distros and is growing by the day. The fact is, Ubuntu Christian Edition exists and should be included. I will be happy to make any changes to the wording of its entry if needed. I think that it would be completely inappropriate to remove it on the basis that it is "obscure". This seems more like a vendetta against a select group of Ubuntu derivatives and Ubuntu customization tools. --Mhancoc7 12:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge the real distros to the "parent" distributions; not sure what to do with the hoaxes, but I suppose they could be Deleted (Jesux got media coverage though so I'm really not sure about that, but the Yellow Hat sounds like Things RMS Made Up One Day). My general gut feeling is that "stock distro plus a few appropriate tweaks" things can be combined into (e.g.) Ubuntu or "List of Ubuntu-based distributions". They're not really full-blown dists of their own. (You don't write articles about "The Matrix (the version with US copyright warnings)" or "The Matrix (the version with copyright warnings in European languages)" either. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • On a second thought: Keep Automatix but the above still stands for others. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep On grounds of this being a potential nightmare to unravel afterwards. I don't think these should all be nominated as a group. There are already replies on the lines of X has coverage, Y doesn't and I'm not sure about Z. I'd like to see this afd closed early, and new ones started for each one seperately. Polenth 01:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I feel that all the articles have a NPOV and an encyclopeadic tone. If any of the articles contain any indepth howtos then they should be have a link to an appropriate howto site. --Benjaminevans82 17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Please, let's not be hasty. Like many other great internet projects and innovations, Wikipedia is evolving. That is the way of things. To call for the deletion of an article or articles simply because of your own personal and rigid standards for "encyclopedia" is myopic and backwards. In fact, take a few more steps back from the concept of the internet as a whole and view as technology in general. Your assertions provide nothing more than personal preferences and are clearly not mindful of adaptation, innovation or change. I hate to put it in clichéd lingo, but I think you're taking the encyclopedia concept far too literally while disregarding wonderful possibilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.196.217 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and renominate individually as needed. Secretlondon 13:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but I would agree that they need to be edited heavily. In particular, Ubuntu Christian has a strong one-sided view. It needs to be rewritten for neutrality. It's one of the ones I'm looking into using, and the page to mee seems like an advertisement for the distro. Superslacker87 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep How does it seem like an advertisement? --Mhancoc7 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all but Automatix Automatix makes a sourced attempt at demonstrating note, although it could use a little work: that said, a merge still may warrant consideration. The others are all but completely lacking verifiable sources, are forks of OSes that can be easily and speedily dealt with in the parent articles, and one in particular, Yellow GNU/Linux is just a weak RMS joke that doesn't even attempt to make a case for notability. With regard to the Ubuntu forks, note that both could be dealt almost entirely in one two paragraphs in a single section at Ubuntu. MrZaiustalk 19:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all exept Automatix. "Jesux" and "Yellow Hat" are both jokes. There shouldn't be an article for a single joke. Maybe we can merge "Ubuntu Christian Edition" and "Ichthux". Or Ichthux could be a sidenote on the "Ubuntu Christian Edition" page. EasyUbuntu could be merged with Automatix or deleted. I think Automatix deserves an article. It is widely used. The others is not IMHO. --Ysangkok 16:22, 28 June 2007 (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.