Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debootstrap

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. @pple (☞ talk) 19:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debootstrap

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

Minor system component of Debian with no independent notability and only one non-affiliated (?) source: a message on a mailing list. I tried PROD because of the snowball clause, but an IP user removed the PROD.

There are lots of blogs and the like explaining debootstrap on the web, but none that establishes it "as significant in its particular field" (WP:NSOFT). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes it has +298,000 results on Google. Just in case we have it as a draft. However I don't agree with you, it's significant same as Debian Almquist shell. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSOFT wants reliable, third-part sources, not WP:GOOGLEHITS. I actually checked the Google results, and DuckDuckGo results, and I got blogs, forums, package manager listings, and manuals. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertyus and Sidelight12: And I have: HowtoForge, LinuxToday and About.com. I just need help with integrating these sources to article. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 07:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howtoforge is a WP:SPS: according to its instructions, anyone can create an account and "start publishing [their] content instantly". The LinuxToday entry is only a link to a blog, so again not a reliable source, and the about.com entry is too short to count as significant coverage. It's also pretty much copied over from [1], a WP:tertiary source. So we still don't have a secondary source, as required by WP:GNG.

I hope I don't sound too much like a bureaucrat, but I simply don't see why a Wikipedia article about debootstrap needs to exist. The Linux community has websites and manuals on all kinds of tools, but that doesn't mean they're all notable and worth describing in an encyclopedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Debian or other Linux software related article. Not notable on its own. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete It exists, and anything that needs to be said about it can be said quite happily by the Debian projects. Lack of independent coverage means a WP:N fail for coverage here.

Not a merge, because if it was worthwhile enough for us to mention it under Debian@WP, it would be worthwhile mentioning in a standalone article. I don't see either as being needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 08:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Debian or delete. It might be undue to merge this into Debian, and it's not notable enough to survive as an independent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Article is poorly written and definition is confusing. Deb (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2014 (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.