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.  Sandstein  20:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super OS[edit]

Super OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is basically a Ubuntu remaster that was active some years ago. There is very little reliable third-party coverage about this subject and the "distro" was relatively short-lived. The arguments in past discussions were quite weak, there is no way this is "as notable as any other distro". –ilmaisin (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - It may not be as notable as other distros, but it did gain some media coverage. Looks like it barely passes notability guidelines to me. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability. The best ref is a brief lifehacker piece, with only a paragraph of coverage, on its own not sufficient for establishing notability. The other lifehacker ref only covers App Runner; this is a different piece of software, notability is not inherited, and this article does not mention Super OS. Both softpedia refs are just quoting a developers' press release, and as such are not significant independent coverage. A search turned up download sites and forum posts, but no significant, independent coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - While I can't support any of the arguments here for non-notability, circumstances have changed. The website distributing the software is dead and so is the distribution. It was previously blatantly notable (most distributions Wikipedia features don't get the coverage this one got), but is no longer notable due to lack of existence.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It was as much as blatantly notable but it is not now? How can that be? Notability is not temporary. --LjL

  LjL I wish I had a better answer for you. I probably should have said that its notability proved to be of a short-term nature, and not up to the bar Wikipedia sets. That said, I work in software, and am biased. Unlike people, birds, or castles, the "notability" of software seems (at least to me) to operate differently. I don't learn about notable software in books or peer-reviewed literature (and neither does anyone else). How that implicates upon a useful guideline to editors, I'm not yet sure.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: I don't think the notability has changed in any way due to lack of development, but considering that the references lack any depth of coverage or independence from press releases to establish notability, it should just be deleted. Ceosad (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2015 (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.