Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linvo

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linvo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Linux distribution. I don't think it fits any speedy category, but I can't find any significant information about it in any reliable source (and precious little on forums or message boards, either). Glenfarclas (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant notability, and spammy. NJA (t/c) 09:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--77.76.50.154 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)I added more sources now.[reply]

--Ivshti (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)What sources do you exactly need? I am waiting for the DistroWatch admin to approve it, I've submitted it on 4th of January this year but DistroWatch says that there is a 90 day minimum for every distribution to stay on the waiting list. That's the reason for not having it at DistroWatch. There are a lot of proofs that I have released Linvo versions a long time ago, but I wanted to stay out of DistroWatch and stay out of promoting it until I release a release with GNOME. Sadly, those are in Bulgarian, but still: http://www.linux-bg.org/cgi-bin/y/index.pl?page=repository&key=408800417 - Linvo 0.8 release announcement. The website seems so show the date wrong, but the comments are from the right date - the first comment is from "11-11-2008". So it's a big mistake of mine that I promoted it only in Linux-BG.[reply]

Comment: Hi Ivshti, unfortunately the issue isn't just whether it can be proven that Linvo exists, or whether the facts about it can be proven. The issue is whether Linvo is notable enough for a standalone article in an encyclopedia. (See also WP:BUTITEXISTS.) If every piece of software ever written had an article, Wikipiedia wouldn't be an encyclopedia but an indiscriminate compendium of facts. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: If this ends in deletion, then per my conversation with the creator at User talk:Ivshti it looks like he would like the page userfied or to have a copy otherwise made available to him. Thanks-- Glenfarclas (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New Linux distro—no independent coverage. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise those. Pcap ping 18:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have stated there is nothing significant to note here. JBsupreme (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.