Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Chakra (operating system): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:31, 20 September 2013 editA Fellow Editor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,962 edits Undid revision 573732835 by Aoidh (talk) — Restoring once again.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:30, 14 April 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(29 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''Keep'''. Outside of the nominator, there are no calls for the article's deletion. The consideration of the article's notability by those who joined the discussion offers an affirmation of the article's notability, as per Misplaced Pages guidelines. Any perceived shortcoming can be addressed with editorial input and referencing; removing the article from the website appears to be an extreme solution. A non-admin disclosure. ] (]) 00:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{notavote}}
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakra Linux}}{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakra (operating system)}}</ul></div> <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakra Linux}}{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakra (operating system)}}</ul></div>
:{{la|Chakra (operating system)}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) :{{la|Chakra (operating system)}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
Line 6: Line 13:
Discussion at the talk page has highlighted the lack of notability; the few reliable sources that exist are brief reviews on websites that review any and every distro that requests it; this doesn't show notability. Having an entry on DistroWatch doesn't show notability because , and the rankings are based on pageviews and does not attribute towards notability. This article's subject fails ] and comes nowhere close to meeting ]. ] (]) 01:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Discussion at the talk page has highlighted the lack of notability; the few reliable sources that exist are brief reviews on websites that review any and every distro that requests it; this doesn't show notability. Having an entry on DistroWatch doesn't show notability because , and the rankings are based on pageviews and does not attribute towards notability. This article's subject fails ] and comes nowhere close to meeting ]. ] (]) 01:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


⚫ *'''Note:''' ] was already reviewed for notability in a (21 October 2011). The result of the discussion was keep. ] (]) 02:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
<small></small><br />
⚫ ''Note: ''] was already reviewed for notability in a (21 October 2011). The result of the discussion was keep.


''Note: '' Editors involved in — other than Aoidh — have expressed the opinion that the article is notable and/or that notable reliable references exist. *'''Note:''' Editors involved in — other than Aoidh — have expressed the opinion that the article is notable and/or that notable reliable references exist. ] (]) 02:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
⚫ :*Your note is unnecessary, as the previous AfD is already linked at the right, and your assertion that it was "already reviewed for notability" is flat-out wrong. Poor assertions from the article's creator KAMiKAZOW does not "review notability"; and an article being kept at AfD does not mean an article is notable, especially an AfD from years ago; previous AfDs do not preclude the question of notability, which needs to be established; citing a previous AfD with poor reasoning from 2011 does not negate that. - ] (]) 03:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


⚫ *'''Keep. ''' What Aoidh “forgot” to mention is that the article in question also covers KDEmod which in itself was also very popular before the project renamed itself to Chakra and turned Arch+KDEmod into a stand-alone distribution. Publications such as ] also found Chakra notable enough to report on it (and no, The H does not cover every distro under the sun).
⚫ --] (]) 02:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
⚫ ::The claim that Chakra bought popularity is a libelous claim without anything to back it up. --] (]) 01:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
⚫ :Your note is unnecessary, as the previous AfD is already linked at the right, and your assertion that it was "already reviewed for notability" is flat-out wrong. Poor assertions from the article's creator KAMiKAZOW does not "review notability"; and an article being kept at AfD does not mean an article is notable, especially an AfD from years ago; previous AfDs do not preclude the question of notability, which needs to be established; citing a previous AfD with poor reasoning from 2011 does not negate that. - ] (]) 03:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

⚫ :: '''Keep.''' What Aoidh “forgot” to mention is that the article in question also covers KDEmod which in itself was also very popular before the project renamed itself to Chakra and turned Arch+KDEmod into a stand-alone distribution. Publications such as ] also found Chakra notable enough to report on it (and no, The H does not cover every distro under the sun).
⚫ :: The claim that Chakra bought popularity is a libelous claim without anything to back it up. --] (]) 01:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
:::First of all, if you're going to claim that something is "libelous", it would help if you would actually read what you're citing; nobody came anywhere close to claiming that "Chakra bought popularity". Secondly, the KDEmod bit still doesn't make this subject somehow notable without sources showing as much. The H's brief reviews (and yes, there are countless) do not show notability. - ] (]) 03:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC) :::First of all, if you're going to claim that something is "libelous", it would help if you would actually read what you're citing; nobody came anywhere close to claiming that "Chakra bought popularity". Secondly, the KDEmod bit still doesn't make this subject somehow notable without sources showing as much. The H's brief reviews (and yes, there are countless) do not show notability. - ] (]) 03:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


::<small>Actually, I added the template with the previous AFD because it wasn't included with the original nomination. Cheers, ]] 05:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)</small>


:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 01:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)</small> :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 01:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)</small>

*'''Keep''' - Notability establised by , and . ~] 03:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
::A few brief reviews do not establish notability, as evidenced by consensus ]. They are fine for reliable sources, but not all reliable sources show ]. - ] (]) 03:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
:::You're suggesting there is not ] in these articles. I don't know how you can make such a claim. The articles are directly about Chakra. There's not a requirement that they be feature articles or of a certain length. What's required is that a ] found the topic worthy of writing about. What happened at ] is not of direct concern here and I can't tell what sources were examined in that AfD because the comments are terse and the article has been deleted. ~] 14:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Fair enough. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I disagree. - ] (]) 03:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

*'''Weak keep'''. ''Linux User'' and ''LinuxInsider'' are both established magazines which have been around for about 15 years and which have a reputation for editorial oversight. The fact that each of them dedicated a review to Chakra is (barely) enough to establish its notability. (I don't understand why ] dismisses them as "brief"; they're just as long as most software, book, film, and theatre reviews in any other reliable periodical.) The other sources mentioned here and in the article are not ]: ''DistroWatch'' lists anything and everything, taking OS descriptions from user-submitted content with little or no editorial oversight; ''Muktware'', despite advertising itself as an "online magazine", is too new and obscure to have developed a reputation as anything other than a one-man blog; IIRC all the other references in the article are either to primary sources or to personal blogs. —] (]) 07:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

*'''Strong Keep''' — Indications of notability:
** Chakra has been a featured topic on Jupiter Broadcasting's 'The Linux Action Show'. ''Note:'' LAS is ''not'' a 'vlog' but rather an internationally viewed program with major commercial sponsors (like ] and ])...
*:: http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/13308/arch-made-easy-las-s19e03/
*:: ''jupiterbroadcasting.com'' site metrics (42,693 monthly visits):
*:: http://urlm.co/www.jupiterbroadcasting.com
** While merely being listed on DistroWatch may not be considered noteworthy, perhaps Chakra's ranking in the top 10–20% over the last year might be?
*:: http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity
** Chakra on LinuxInsider
*:: http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/77685.html
*:: A bit about LinuxInsider:
*:: http://www.linkedin.com/company/ect-news-network/linuxinsider-1547323/product
** Chakra on LinuxUser & Developer:
*:: http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/reviews/chakra-linux-review-kde-and-arch-make-for-a-winning-combination
*:: About Linux User & Developer:
*:: http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/about
** Chakra on ''LinuxBSDos.com'':
*:: http://www.linuxbsdos.com/2013/02/19/chakra-2013-02-benz-review/
*:: About ''LinuxBSDos.com'':
*:: http://www.linuxbsdos.com/about/
*:: ''LinuxBSDos.com'' site metrics (75,304 monthly visits):
*:: http://urlm.co/www.linuxbsdos.com
** Chakra on Muktware:
*:: http://www.muktware.com/articles/3165/chakra-review-arch-fork-mortals
*:: About Muktware:
*:: http://www.muktware.com/4647/about-us
*:: Muktware site metrics (64,402 monthly visits):
*:: http://urlm.co/www.muktware.com
** That Chakra gets referred to multiple times on StackExchange seems to indicate that the distro is notable within the Linux/Computer tech community:
*:: About StackExchange:
*:: http://stackexchange.com/about
*:: https://en.wikipedia.org/Stack_Exchange_Network
** Here's one of the many reviews found using Google Search. InfinitelyGalactic's youtube channel—which focuses on reviewing Linux distros—has a review of Chakra which has received—as of today—21,848 views:
*:: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmbjx1Nz8Bc#t=60
** While any one Linux/tech blog or youtube channel may not by itself establish notability, I think the fact that many such make mention of Chakra deserves considerationy when viewed . In fact, I would say that if many people are feeling a need to make mention of something, then that 'something' is ''by definition'' notable (at least in a ''de facto'' sense).
<small>* ]
*: "Software is notable if it meets '''''any one''''' of these criteria: ...The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field... ...The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or '''''reliable reviews'''''..."
* ]
*: "'''''Common sense''''' and an awareness of historical context should be used in determining whether coverage in sources found for software is in fact reliable and significant... ...It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software..."
* ]
*: "As with other essays and guidelines, this article is not intended to consider all circumstances. If in doubt, remember that rules are principles intended to guide decisions and that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy..."
* <small></small></small>
It is all of the above factors taken together, collectively, which lead me to endorse a '''Strong Keep'''.<br />
⚫ --] (]) 08:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
::*] aside, which source are you claiming suggests that this subject is "significant in its particular field"? - ] (]) 08:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
::** Your question suggests you probably missed the "any one" part of the criteria. ] (]) 00:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
::::*He omitted all the other criteria but purposefully included that one, which suggests that he believes it meets that criteria, so no, I did not miss that. - ] (]) 09:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

*'''Keep''', given its presence in a number of ]. I'll add one more to the list: (a very big Linux site in Spanish) Regards. ] ] 22:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 03:30, 14 April 2022

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. Outside of the nominator, there are no calls for the article's deletion. The consideration of the article's notability by those who joined the discussion offers an affirmation of the article's notability, as per Misplaced Pages guidelines. Any perceived shortcoming can be addressed with editorial input and referencing; removing the article from the website appears to be an extreme solution. A non-admin disclosure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Chakra (operating system)

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
AfDs for this article:
Chakra (operating system) (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)

Discussion at the talk page has highlighted the lack of notability; the few reliable sources that exist are brief reviews on websites that review any and every distro that requests it; this doesn't show notability. Having an entry on DistroWatch doesn't show notability because you can simply buy your way into DistroWatch, and the rankings are based on pageviews and does not attribute towards notability. This article's subject fails WP:GNG and comes nowhere close to meeting WP:NSOFT. Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Your note is unnecessary, as the previous AfD is already linked at the right, and your assertion that it was "already reviewed for notability" is flat-out wrong. Poor assertions from the article's creator KAMiKAZOW does not "review notability"; and an article being kept at AfD does not mean an article is notable, especially an AfD from years ago; previous AfDs do not preclude the question of notability, which needs to be established; citing a previous AfD with poor reasoning from 2011 does not negate that. - Aoidh (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Aoidh “forgot” to mention is that the article in question also covers KDEmod which in itself was also very popular before the project renamed itself to Chakra and turned Arch+KDEmod into a stand-alone distribution. Publications such as The H also found Chakra notable enough to report on it (and no, The H does not cover every distro under the sun).
The claim that Chakra bought popularity is a libelous claim without anything to back it up. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
First of all, if you're going to claim that something is "libelous", it would help if you would actually read what you're citing; nobody came anywhere close to claiming that "Chakra bought popularity". Secondly, the KDEmod bit still doesn't make this subject somehow notable without sources showing as much. The H's brief reviews (and yes, there are countless) do not show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I added the template with the previous AFD because it wasn't included with the original nomination. Cheers, Stalwart111 05:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
A few brief reviews do not establish notability, as evidenced by consensus at other AfDs whose articles only had such reviews. They are fine for reliable sources, but not all reliable sources show notability. - Aoidh (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You're suggesting there is not significant coverage in these articles. I don't know how you can make such a claim. The articles are directly about Chakra. There's not a requirement that they be feature articles or of a certain length. What's required is that a reliable source found the topic worthy of writing about. What happened at another AfD is not of direct concern here and I can't tell what sources were examined in that AfD because the comments are terse and the article has been deleted. ~KvnG 14:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I disagree. - Aoidh (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Linux User and LinuxInsider are both established magazines which have been around for about 15 years and which have a reputation for editorial oversight. The fact that each of them dedicated a review to Chakra is (barely) enough to establish its notability. (I don't understand why User:Aoidh dismisses them as "brief"; they're just as long as most software, book, film, and theatre reviews in any other reliable periodical.) The other sources mentioned here and in the article are not reliable: DistroWatch lists anything and everything, taking OS descriptions from user-submitted content with little or no editorial oversight; Muktware, despite advertising itself as an "online magazine", is too new and obscure to have developed a reputation as anything other than a one-man blog; IIRC all the other references in the article are either to primary sources or to personal blogs. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

* Misplaced Pages:NSOFT#Inclusion

  • "Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: ...The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field... ...The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews..."
  • Misplaced Pages:NSOFT#Reliability_and_significance_of_sources
    "Common sense and an awareness of historical context should be used in determining whether coverage in sources found for software is in fact reliable and significant... ...It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software..."
  • Misplaced Pages:NSOFT#Exceptions
    "As with other essays and guidelines, this article is not intended to consider all circumstances. If in doubt, remember that rules are principles intended to guide decisions and that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy..."

It is all of the above factors taken together, collectively, which lead me to endorse a Strong Keep.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  • He omitted all the other criteria but purposefully included that one, which suggests that he believes it meets that criteria, so no, I did not miss that. - Aoidh (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2013 (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.