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 no consensus‎. The nominator has withdrawn their deletion nomination but there are some editors advocating Delete. So, I'm closing this as "No consensus". I don't think a relisting would clarify the difference of opinion that exists on this article and subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elive[edit]

Elive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Third time. Too much self-published junk with a few (pay for pub?) sources. Every 3+/- years they try again: As before, "only significant coverage appears to be from e-magazines. Much of the content appears to be promotional." Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elive and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elive_(2nd_nomination) Yae4 (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Yae4 (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A strange way of nominating an AfD.

  "every 3 years" is not true, only my personal absence since the last application is that long.

  "A few (pay for pub) sources" is a highly suggestive, unwarranted and unproven comment.

  I'm not sure why a printed magazine has more status here than the e-version but reality is that those e-magazines are the easiest to reference and check.

  As to the 'promotional appearance': That will always be the case one way or the other when it comes to software. Triantares (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC) — Triantares (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  It was deleted in 2016, and 2019. This is 2023. That's roughly every 3-4 years. Now I know it (EliveLinux) was also declined AfC in three times in 2020-2021. So it's more frequent than I said, not that it makes any difference other than wasting other editors' time over the years. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: All the content was copied from HandWiki, which is released under a CC-by-SA 3.0 license. — Diannaa (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Diannaa Can you check if the current page is the same as the one that got deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elive (2nd nomination)? Nobody (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I already did -it does not match the version deleted in 2019 or in 2016 either. — Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is actually the other way round: The handwiki entry is a verbatim copy of the Elive entry at https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elive. It being called EliveLinux says enough. Triantares (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC) — Triantares (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete - The article was last deleted in 2019, and while there are some post-2019 sources added that warrant examination, they don't show notability for the article's subject. The only thing that has changed since 2019 are routine blog posts including Medium, which per WP:MEDIUM isn't a reliable source. LinuxInsider reviews don't show notability because that site makes a point to review anything and everything that they can as far as Linux distros, so being reviewed doesn't show anything other than the fact that the distro exists. When you take WP:AUD into account (as this article falls under WP:NORG), it further cements the fact that those niche blogs and other sources don't show notability for this article's subject. Notability wise, nothing has changed since the previous AfD. - Aoidh (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you underestimate what 'LinuxFormat', 'LinuxJournal' and 'Linux-Magazine' represent. They were (and still are) the most reliable/notable (e-magazines AND print versions) sources in regard to Linux in Europe and the USA.

  If these are serious criteria to propose deletion ..... then WP might as well delete 9/10 Linux distributions, including those that you (@Aoidh) have associated yourself with.

  Could it be that you have a 'conflict of interest' (COI) here? Triantares (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC) — Triantares (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  See WP:AVOIDYOU; there's a lot of assumptions in that comment, none of which are accurate. I am aware of these publications and what they mean, for one. For another, please do not to make accusations without evidence; I can assure you that I have no conflict of interest with any Linux distribution. If you have evidence to the contrary, you are welcome to address that at WP:COIN, but such an accusation has no merit and an ad hominem remark about another editor is not going to persuade anyone of the notability of this subject.

  As for the online magazine, even if a magazine is notable, that does not mean everything they review is itself notable, especially publications that make a point to be indiscriminate in what they review. It's not notable that LinuxInsider reviewed this distro when they review every distro they can, and such a specialist online magazine especially does not show notability when considering WP:AUD, even if it otherwise was notable that this review was present, which it is not. As far as the point that then WP might as well delete 9/10 Linux distributions see WP:OSE and WP:AON. We're not discussing other articles, we are discussing this one and whether this article's subject meets the notability guidelines; it does not. If you think other Linux distributions do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines then by all means address those articles on their merits at the appropriate venue, but this AfD is about this article, nothing more. - Aoidh (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The only assumption made is the 'underestimation' comment .... there are no accusations there, merely questions.

  'LinuxInsider' reviews are written by Jack Wallen, who also writes for other media so a few can indeed be removed., I'll give you that. :)

  In addition I do not wish to discuss other articles, only find out why those strict notability guidelines only seem applicable on the Elive article.

  Comments, revisions, criticism or practical help on the article are welcome but nominating it for deletion is totally over the top. Triantares (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC) — Triantares (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Question asked, question answered, then. The lack of notability isn't something that "comments, revisions, criticism or practical help" can fix; articles such as this one that do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements are deleted because Wikipedia's articles are on notable subjects and is not an indiscriminate database of information, and the notability criteria is not being applied unevenly; if someone feels an article does not meet the notability guidelines they nominate it for deletion; this is far from the first Linux distro to be deleted or nominated at AfD (there's even a special page for watching such thing that happen to articles within the purview of WikiProject Linux). - Aoidh (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Triantares: Outing is bad at Wikipedia... but so is (undeclared) WP:COI editing and promotion, and assuming bad faith... and You accused Aoidh of COI first. It took less than two minutes to confirm you have a close connection to Elive. This is over the top. I've had articles I created fail AfD; I've had articles I created survive AfD. This one looked like a marginal fail to me. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  > It took less than two minutes to confirm you have a close connection to Elive.

  Just a matter of doing a quick web-search. The reality is that the Elive community has become so small that anyone doing any kind of editing or a submission has to have an affiliation. Either by simply using it as OS or using the forums to get or give help. There's nobody out there thinking: "Oh wait, I'm bored so I'll go looking for a marginal distro to add it to WP." Either it's someone affiliated or someone asked to do it for them.

  And of course I'm not hiding anything I use the same name everywhere ..... You can even find my homepage and see what I do for a living.

  Now the term 'assuming bad faith' has fallen: That was the reason I stopped wanting to have anything to do with WP for the last few years. The constant assumption of bad faith was totally exasperating and so bleak that it made me feel dirty every time I interacted (barring a few). The atmosphere was so dismal and toxic that I'd promised myself never to go here again.... Now I'm all for trying over (and I think I've been manipulated into doing that) but I do NOT intend to go down the same rabbit hole again and will react without hesitance. I'm Dutch so unlike German, English or French speakers, I don't politely beat around the bush and I don't mince words. Triantares (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  > There's nobody out there thinking: "Oh wait, I'm bored so I'll go looking for a marginal distro to add it to WP." Either it's someone affiliated or someone asked to do it for them.

  Believe it or not, some unaffiliated, unrequested people add stuff to WP Just for Fun. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I wasn't aware of the other draft, with a few more failed AfC's in 2020 and 2021, which Triantares just came out of a 2.5 year sleep mode to request undelete, and blanked. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Totally correct. I requested an 'undelete' to retrieve lost content and blanked it with a comment as to why I did so...the submission itself was misnamed and irrelevant. Alas WP is not very clear on how to self-delete a draft other than wait out for it to be removed.

  As to you marking multiple references with 'self published?': You are so obviously wrong that I wonder if you even made an effort to open and look through them. Adding a question mark does not remove the responsibility for the suggestion made there.

  The same goes for your "came out of 2,5 year sleep mode" comment above:

  What I do with my time and when, is none of your business and it is certainly not up to you to use that as any sort of argument or qualification. Triantares (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC) — Triantares (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  The other, thrice-rejected draft and the current article are virtually identical except for a paragraph of blatant advertising I deleted. FYI, the question mark is automatic with the inline template. Yes, I looked at them. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can agree on removing that paragraph, it is rather cringe-worthy.

  I don't even know/remember where that came from. I certainly didn't write it, not in the Elive nor in the EliveLinux draft. Triantares (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC) — Triantares (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Just adding a note here, to prevent future confusion, that I've just performed a history merge from the draft to the live article, to repair the cut-and-paste attribution issues. DanCherek (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question? for Triantares or Thanatermesis, or other editors: The article History section now concludes "Eight years after 2.0, version 3.0 was released. It was no longer pay-to-install, ..." However, when I look at the website for downloads, the only non-pay download option I find says

  Write an article about Elive on any website you choose, in preference referencing the Stable version, mentioning the features you liked the most. It can be in any language but the preference is English. Then, submit the link to your article and we will email you shortly

  with additional requirements including: must be "a real article" and "postive feedback". Don't you agree: (1) this makes the Wikipedia article extremely misleading, and (2) this supports the concern that sources are "pay for pub"? -- Yae4 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's for the 64-bit version; I believe the 32-bit version is perfectly usable (although you can't of course use 64-bit software). The 32-bit version has a delayed-download option according to the download page (both for the stable and beta offered versions).

  I do agree that the requirement that it has to be positive is weird, though. That shouldn't be a requirement, and I therefore do agree with both of your points.

  Version 3.0 had free downloads initially, switching to the "donate or delayed download" system about 24 hours later (the creator cited bandwidth costs as the main problem). 3.0 still has that, so the article is still correct; it's likely the beta version that you are looking at, which has the paid 64-bit version and the free 32-bit version.

  (I do somewhat have a COI here , as I'm a forum moderator for Elive. Let me know if that's an issue) TheTechRobo (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No surprise, and not linking it, but Elive's forum has long-running discussion, in essence, recruiting editors to among other things "reference the elive page in many other wikipedia pages (like "lists of linux distributions")". WP:MEAT happens. TheTechRobo3641 , I'll drop the standard WP:COI warning on your Talk page, with helpful links for cautions and suggestions. IMO a moderator status is a close connection -- Yae4 (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. I don't see much notability in this distribution minus a few newsletter pages. Dawnbails (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll add on here: This page wasn't run through AfC after the three times it was denied and was instead copied over to a new page (Elive) from Draft:EliveLinux. Dawnbails (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: (Nominator) I wish to withdraw the AfD, if possible. With recent changes and inclusion of more neutral content, including criticism, from Distrowatch reviews particularly, I now feel the article is worth keeping, and at least marginally sourced. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2023 (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.