Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubuntu Christian Edition (2nd nomination)

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 This is being closed merge/redirect against the public opinion here so bear with me. Subject is a minor variant of a linux distribution. Subject inherits all of its notability from Ubuntu itself (read WP:NOTINHERITED to understand the problem with this). Subject has no significant reason for an independent article. Majority of article content is a link farm to external sources, giving reviews. Once you strip the link farm out, and remove content that is duplicated from the article on Ubuntu itself, your left with approximately 2 sentances of material. The comments below from keep side leans more towards WP:ILIKEIT or WP:NOTAGAIN. The comments below from delete side are no better. Until this distribution has collected a much larger following, this content rates only a mention in the Variants section of Ubuntu.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ubuntu Christian Edition

Ubuntu Christian Edition (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Few to no reliable sources (Google hits point to blogs or forums), the OS seems to merely be a version of Ubuntu (Linux distribution) with a few freely avaliable, non-individually notable applications bundled as default, so not different enough to justify its own page - the author of the distribution himself admits "I know that this could all be accomplished with a meta-package or a bash script".[1] -Halo 14:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - a minor variation on the Ubuntu distro. The author's comment that much the same could be accomplished with a meta-package weighs against it, even if he has rolled it all into an iso. No prejudice against recreation if the project takes off (which I'd actually love to see). -- BPMullins | Talk 18:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: This is the third time in the last six months that this article has been an AfD subject. Notability requirements are met. Part of that criteria is listing reliable sources. (I'll also point out that every distribution can be created as a metapackage.) jonathon 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Third time? I count two, including this one. Is there a nomination missed? To be transparent, it should be linked to here. -Halo 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of the first AfD proposal can be found at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Automatix_%28software%29 jonathon 00:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• • It would be helpful if you could mention what reliable sources you are referring to, because they sure as hell aren't listed in the article. Burntsauce 17:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Comment It has one possibly reliable source (U.S. Catholic) which is excerpted on the last reference. I can't see if the coverage is trivial or extensive. Distrowatch does not have a review (nor links to any major publications that have reviewed it). The other references are blogs and/or forums which fail WP:RS. I love to see the distros on here but it doesn't look good for this one. The talk page has a to do list that has been there for a bit. It doesn't look like it is progressing much. Spryde 20:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The DistroWatch page on Ubuntu Christian Edition links to 2 reviews of 1.x, and two reviews of 2.x, in addition to support forums, download mirrors, and everything else that Distrowatch provides when it lists a distribution.(Somebody else can explain why it doesn't list the applications that are unique to Ubuntu Christian Edition.)jonathon 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Support forums, download mirrors and most likely DistroWatch don't meet WP:RS. -Halo 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Here we are again. This is just about as ridiculous as it can get. Ubuntu CE has maintained a popularity ranking in the top 30 or so distros almost since its first release. The official Ubuntu Forums have allowed us to have our own sub-forum. There have been mentions of Ubuntu CE in Linux Format magazine on two separate occasions. It has also been featured in the U.S. Catholic magazine as well as the Perspective parenting magazine from Australia. The fact is, Ubuntu CE EXISTS and is POPULAR within a specific community. The only reason there is so many attempts to remove it from Wikipedia is because of its Christian content. I agree that there needs to be some notability guidelines, but I believe that we should err of the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. Well, if Ubuntu CE is going to be removed from Wikipedia, let's get on with it. If not then let's move on with more important issues. Ubuntu CE Developer: Jereme Hancock --Mhancoc7 23:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Much of a drama queen? Add the sources and this will never happen again. Like I said, I can't find them online doing some quick searchs. You know where they are so post them! I will guarantee no article ever got AfD'ed for too many reliable sources! Spryde 00:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is DistroWatch a reliable source? It bases its rankings on click-throughs, so someone could easily bias the results. Forums aren't reliable sources. Whatsmore, the question is if it's individually notable enough to have a separate page, when it's primarily just Ubuntu with a few extra packages. Worth adding that user only has 7 contributions to Wikipedia, all outside of userspace, all referring to the deletion of the article. -Halo 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am the developer of Ubuntu CE. I have been criticized in the past for editing the Ubuntu CE entry because of my bias. It just feels like there are many here that feel a sense of superiority. I do not like the elitist nature of some groups. I may have this all wrong, but that is the impression that I get. I will try to take the time to add the sources. --Mhancoc7 15:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 12:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I believe that it's absolutly notable , as I have had a member of a church I live near ask me about it. Mattva01 16:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nominator, this is just a minor variation on the Ubuntu distribution. PLEASE NOTE: WP:ILIKEIT is explicitly listed as an argument to avoid during deletion debates, and such !votes are quickly discounted. This article has NO RELIABLE THIRD PARTY SOURCES. Period. Burntsauce 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I HAVE ONE QUESTION. WHY IS THIS ARTICLE BEING CONSIDERED FOR DELETION? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britguyinus1995 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  Might I suggest you scroll up? MrZaius^talk 08:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge Most of these arguments are invalid, delete and keep alike. As has already been pointed out, WP:ILIKEIT doesn't cut the mustard, but neither does "This product shouldn't exist"/aka - I don't like it. What matters is that the page is flagged with multiple borderline WP:RS sources and one patently obvious WP:RS, the print Catholic magazine. As stated above, we don't have a clear/good way to verify that source over teh intertubes, but that's true of most books and many magazines and does not invalidate the source. The relatively weaker sources, given their number, and the RS source are adequate. There is so much overlap between this and other similar projects that I believe it poor writing to deal with them separately, but this second AfD was probably not called for and the nom's rationale is partially inappropriate. MrZaius^talk 08:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but what part of my rationale was inappropriate? I said there seems to be few reliable sources (which seems to be true - 3 or 4 at best) and that it just seems like Ubuntu with a few non-notable freely avaliable applications which isn't different enough to justify its own page (and hence should be merged with Ubuntu), which is exactly what you said. Please WP:AGF. -Halo 12:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Everything after "Few to no reliable sources (Google hits point to blogs or forums)." Assumed good faith doesn't mean don't shoot down invalid arguments in *fD. Notability is built on sources et al, not the merits of the product. MrZaius^talk 12:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I searched and Google did point towards blogs and forums rather than reliable sources[2]. I was cited WP:AGF as I was assuming you were calling me a liar, when I was addressing the disproportionately high Google count. I'm glad we agree it'd probably be more appropriate as a simple paragraph in List of Ubuntu-based distributions#Ubuntu_Christian_Edition, as little more could be said since it doesn't seem especially individually notable, as ultimately it's just a simple variant of Ubuntu without any major changes. -Halo 12:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yup. Decent arguments for a merge, and not dissimilar to those I voiced myself on the talk page. Just kinda iffy foundations for a NN-claim leading to an AfD. Just as notability is not transient, notability is also not based on merit, but attention. MrZaius^talk 12:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I just thought that I would point out that even Ubuntu itself recognizes Ubuntu CE as having its own identity. See: http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/derivatives When I first began developing it I also received their permission to use the Ubuntu name in my distro. --Mhancoc7 13:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The key argument for a merge wasn't a merge to Ubuntu, but a merge to a list of distributions, given the considerable overlap in the goals and functionality of this and similar religious distributions. This has already been done for the spoof-religious ones. MrZaius^talk 14:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is just an attempt to marginalize the efforts of religiously oriented distributions. The current list of religiously oriented distros are not one in the same. They are all individual projects that have their own identity, user group, and development teams. Lumping them all into a simple list is an insult to each of these distros development teams efforts. I understand that maintaining the quality of Wikipedia is important. However, I believe that Wikipedia should err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. --Mhancoc7 01:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to merge religiously oriented distros, then something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pseudo_daoist/Religious_Distros would be more suitable than a generic list that includes secular distros. jonathon 15:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. As far as I can tell nothing's changed from the previous AfDs, so this should be speedy-closed. Resubmitting AfDs that went a way you disagree with until you get your way isn't the way this process works. --Delirium 18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, NO, this should not have been kept the first time around. The only sources cited are trivial blogs, there is no indication that this is a notable variation of the Ubuntu distribution. Burntsauce 22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The assertion that it should not have been kept the first time around supports Jeremy's contention the current AfD is yet another attempt to remove all religious content from Wikipedia.jonathon 04:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
      • No it doesn't. It seems like a good faith nomination to me. I can't see any evidence that anybody is trying to remove content from wikipedia purely on the basis that it is 'religious'. Vl'hurg ^talk 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep at least one prior nom a couple of months ago resolved as "keep". Agree with Delirium. R. Baley 21:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the only part of this AFD that is a valid argument is the lack of reliable sources. This seems to have been met now with the addition of the ExtremeTech, linux.com and U.S. Catholic articles. Vl'hurg ^talk 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• What isn't "valid" about saying it's a minor distribution which is a variation of Ubuntu, and that it isn't notable nor different enough to justify its own page? Ignoring it doesn't make it any less valid. -Halo 13:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• As MrZaius said above, notability is not based upon merit but attention. The fact that it is only a minor variation of Ubuntu does not have any impact upon its notability. For example, imagine I released a distro - let's call it Vl'buntu - which is exactly the same as Ubuntu, and (for some bizarre reason) it attracted significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - it would still merit its own article because of said coverage. Vl'hurg ^talk 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I see very little reason to delete this article. It has about the same amount of information as the articles for other distros (e.g. Edubuntu, Xubuntu), and although CE is not an "official" Ubuntu and although there may be only slight technical differences from Ubuntu proper, the notability criteria seem to be satisfied. --mcld 16:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Added Sources - Ok, I have added six more links to reviews and info on Ubuntu Christian Edition. I hope that these are "notable" enough to end this debate once and for all. I just added them very quickly. If anyone would like to clean them up a bit I would really appreciate it. They are listed as More Reviews and Info. Thanks, Jereme --Mhancoc7 01:55, 5 October 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.