The result was no consensus. — Jake Wartenberg 23:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to fail the notability guidelines as it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Searching Google, I found three sources which were remotely reliable ([1], [2], and [3]). However, Linux.com's editorial policy seems to not edit for content and thus would not qualify as a WP:RS since it doesn't have a history of fact checking, and FSM appears to have no editorial policies nor even a list of editors and publishes user submitted content. Thus I was only able to find a single reliable source mentioning SliTaz, hardly qualifies as significant coverage. Books/Scholar/News return 0 hits. Odie5533 (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've added some references from Virtualbox http://virtualbox.wordpress.com/images/slitaz/, UNetbootin http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/, Linux Magazine http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2008/97/SLITAZ. Hopefully these will qualify as reliable sources. Note Distrowatch is also well respected also in the Linux community http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080331#feature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.110.189 (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2009
Hi Odie5533, I've just read that I can't submit an undelete request through an email, so I'll have to try and state my corner here:
Looking at the Mini Linux page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Linux, I notice that the other distros i.e Puppy, Damn Small Linux, Feather Linux, etc. along with SliTaz, all use pretty much the same references. I can't understand what they are doing right and SliTaz is doing wrong? Can you please explain so that we can try and resolve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.111.177 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2009
OK, I understand now; though if you use 'SliTaz' in the [google] boxes, you'll probably get more hits. Thanks for explaining.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.98.85 (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2009