This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aoidh (talk | contribs) at 03:57, 20 September 2013 (→Chakra (operating system): Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:57, 20 September 2013 by Aoidh (talk | contribs) (→Chakra (operating system): Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Chakra (operating system)
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)
- 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)
Note: Chakra (operating system) was already reviewed for notability in a previous AfD discussion (21 October 2011). The result of the discussion was keep.
Note: Editors involved in the current talk-page discussion — other than Aoidh — have expressed the opinion that the article is notable and/or that notable reliable references exist.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 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. - Aoidh (talk) 03:03, 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)
- Keep - Notability establised by , and . ~KvnG 03:50, 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)