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 article lacks notability based on the lack of reliable sources provided and the lack of reliable sources found. The article appears to be unsourcable based on a cursory examination of hits returned by googling. This is assumed to be the case for every other good faith nomination that is brought to AfD on similar grounds. Not asserted to be notable. Not asserted to be sourceable. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article could use some third-party sources, but otherwise I see no reason for deletion: it's in pretty good shape as it is. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The first article was contributed by the Source Mage Project. That's not excatly a third party. The second article is essentially directory listing. The third article is a blog which is not a reliable source. And the fourth is a blog with a project developer as a contributor so it neither reliable, nor independent. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the first is published by a third-party; the second demonstrates verifiability; the third provides additional perspective, third-party content, and demonstration of notability; and the fourth provides more of the same. This is more than enough notability to satisfy me. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Then we will have to agree to disagree as first, the reprinting material provided by the project is marginal at best (similar to a press release); second, verifiability is not at issue and a directory entry doesn't establish notability; third, blogs aren't reliable sources regardless of any addition of perspective; fourth, a blog written by the project developer about the project is about as far away from a reliable source as one can get when trying to establich notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Playing devil's advocate, what specifically would be needed to demonstrate notability of this linux distribution? Coverage at LWN.net and distrowatch.com must count for something, considering we're not dealing with a subject not likely to be covered by CNN or BBC any time soon. If blogs are off-limits completely off-limits, can you give a specific example of a source that would satisfy your notability concerns? -FrankTobia (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This project has been mainly focused on the package manager, the package repositories and getting somebody to release and maintain a ISO, PR has not been a priority and it isn't for the core developer group. It wasn't until not too long ago that Paul Beel (aka novaburst) started doing some movement in the PR area, but its still very vague. There's articles about Source Mage published in LXer, there's a DistroWatch page tracking the project (which seems to be a bit out of date, I have requested the people in charge to look into it) and then there's Mage Power, which is run by Paul and myself. We have gotten articles from LWN and other sources, though I don't have the URL's for citing at hand. In Sorcerer's (where Source Mage forked off of) pages about Sorcery (the package manager) referencing Source Mage and Lunar Linux, that I've read recently. [5][6][7][8][9][10] and many more if you keep scraping google results. If you require more solid references, then by all means Delete the article, as there is nothing much more concrete about it than there is about Lunar Linux. -- ElisamuelResto (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2008 (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.