Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SchilliX

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SchilliX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

These minor OpenSolaris distributions are hardly notable. ilaiho (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are comparable, minor projects:

AuroraUX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BeleniX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MilaX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BeleniX is not a minor distribution and is really far ahead of the others listed here in breadth, scope and current status of development/quality. It is being actively developed and is also used by lots of people. In it's present state BeleniX can be healthily compared with SUN's OpenSolaris and is provides a full-blown, first-class stable OpenSolaris environment. It has a complete KDE3 (4 upcoming) desktop environment, package manager with networked repo, installer and other hallmarks of a complete distro [1]. In fact SUN's project Indiana that created the OpenSolaris distro was initially based off BeleniX - I know since I was myself part of the core development team. The current stub article on BeleniX is hopelessly outdated so I will be updating the BeleniX topic page shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moinakg (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. All of these can be found on Distrowatch, indicating that they have relevance (AuroraUX is on the waiting list as it is new). These OpenSolaris distributions add weight to the OpenSolaris project by showing the different varieties of OpenSolaris. The Belenix project definitely needs to stay, for all the mentioned above, it is a complete package. The AuroraUX project although new is creating a lot of interest, not only because it is a OpenSolaris distro, because it is one of the few operating systems to have an Ada userland. A release distro for the AuroraUX project is not to far away, and then more info will be added to wikipedia. The Milax and Schillix pages do need extra information, but are complete and useful packages.craigvv (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep One of the most advanced distributions of OpenSolaris, by Jorg Schilling, one the most prolific OpenSolaris contributors. Meets all WP:N and WP:V criteria.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom listed four articles for deletion - Are you just referring to SchilliX? Regardless, in what way is WP:V met by any of the above? MrZaius^talk 10:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Being one the first and one of the most stable distribution of the only opensource SVR4 descendant in existence is notable enough to warrant a page in Wikipedia. Moreover the importance of OpenSolaris distributions goes beyond the number of peoples using it including among other things contributing back to the main OpenSolaris code base. Concerning the other distributions MilaX and BeneliX are competing for being the most popular distribution of OpenSolaris behind OpenSolaris himself. AuroraUX is also for it's innovative attempts at a ADA powered user land and also being the only OS wide deployment of the FalconPL programming/scripting language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlanchardJ (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep The fact that they are opensolaris-based and not linux-based don't make them less relevant. As a mater of fact, none of those listed are "minor", being some of the most important together with Nexenta. Oh, or do they need to say "Ubuntu" somewhere to be "relevant"?... And in what sense are them all comparable, aside from being OSol-based?... I agree with the previous comments.Phobos11 (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were not encyclopedically relevant even if they did use Linux kernel. In fact, that would maybe make them even less relevant since there are so enormous amount of minor Linux-based OSes. Wikipedia is not DistroWatch. -ilaiho (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for the reasons explained by Headbomb and Phobos11 above. OpenSolaris is currently a minor player in the FOSS operating systems market, but it is important for an encyclopedia to contain information on notable alternatives to the major players and these are historically significant variations on OpenSolaris. The BSD operating systems are a parallel case and there are articles on historically important versions such as 386BSD and BSDi. Kiore (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the BSD examples you cite have myriad reputable secondary sources available (although the 386BSD article doesn't really list them yet). Making a similar case for these younger projects is substantially more difficult. MrZaius^talk 11:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orDelete AuroraUX or merge all Notability shouldn't be a given based solely on being listed in a list of distributions any more than it should be derived from the myriad similar sites listing frequently AfD/prod'd articles concerning IRC networks et al. Not a single one of these articles has a secondary source listed, but even if they were to become available, all of them are short enough that it would make sense to merge them into a broader discussion of OpenSolaris, perhaps at a prose-heavy new piece published to List of Open Solaris distributions or Open Solaris distributions. The COI and fanboyism-driven comments above really don't present any arguments for individual retention that make any sense to me. If there were a merge, we should also cut the spammy language from OpenSolaris for System z (a bit longer, but not a single secondary source) and merge it into the merge target as well. If not, does it make sense to expand the nom to include it? MrZaius^talk 10:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your comparison to IRC networks isn't valid at all. Not only do IRC network articles tend to be prodded/AfD'd infrequently, we had a drive-by mass prod of at least 20 IRC network articles by Virek on 2008-06-04. These were done en masse without an edit summary, all using the same prod reason: "Article does not establish third party notability. Article lists no notable information for network. Possible COI. Article believed inappropriate for wikipedia" The articles involved were mainly articles for smaller and non-English speaking IRC networks and given all that it is not surprising at all no one really contested the prods when they were placed. Quite a few of these were prodded/deleted after having been prodded once before, which of course is a violation of WP:PROD. The only reason the bulk of these have not been contested is that there are plans to merge and redirect a large number of these articles, so there is no point in having them undeleted until everything else is ready. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I understand your argument - The comparison seems to be quite valid given that you're proposing the exact same solution for what is essentially the same problem. As stated above, a merge that allows for coverage of these short articles topics at a lower threshold of verifiability would seem preferable to retaining the pieces in their present form. Not at all sure how the last bit of your comment pertains to the situation at hand. MrZaius^talk 04:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Moinakg's arguments carry weight. Found a number of sources that at least mention Schillix (ZDNet, OSNews, el Reg, etc) and Milax (ditto but for ZDNet) as well, but the pieces are still short enough that it would be better writing to deal with them in a common article for now. Could, however, keep them from a policy stand point. AuroraUX, on the other hand, has only a single available secondary source, that being an extremely brief three paragraph piece on the OSNews blog. Not nearly good enough, on its own. Again, while that provides enough to allow for a merge of AuroraUX, it does not provide enough to warrant separate retention. Would recommend that nom withdraw this nomination and individually renominate AuroraUX - A merge, if it happens, obviously won't happen overnight. MrZaius^talk 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These are well known OpenSolaris distributions and are hardly not notable. There is absolutely nothing minor about any of these projects; the enormous number of man-hours involved in creating and maintaining these types of projects mean that such projects are not started on a mere whim. In particular, I would compare nominating SchilliX and BeleniX for AfD to nominating Linux distributions such as Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, or Slackware. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability isn't derived from the number of hours spent on a project, it's derived from multiple verifiable sources. Given the complete and utter lack of secondary source material posted to any of the above articles the comparison to the mainstream Linux distributions listed above seems every bit as flawed as the comparison to BSDi et al above. The "minor" slur from the nom seems largely irrelevant, given the lack of a strong case for notability or grounds for an exemption. MrZaius^talk 04:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since when did Wikipedia only retain a commercial product portfolio?

--Nuftaqued (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment SchilliX was the first OpenSolaris distro and BeleniX the second. BeleniX was the first to get a functional GUI desktop. SchilliX, BeleniX and Nexenta came out in 2005. BeleniX has been in active development ever since.Below are some external references on BeleniX and other OpenSolaris distros:
  • Linux Format Magazine based it's initial review of the OpenSolaris Platform on BeleniX:[2]
  • Another review of OpenSolaris distributions from Linux Format:[3]
  • The OpenSolaris Distributions are mentioned in the OpenSolaris Bible with credit given to BeleniX for it's contributions:[4], [5]
  • Phoronix review of BeleniX 0.6:[6]
  • Phoronix review of BeleniX 0.7:[7]
  • BeleniX was one of the top 20 winners of the FOSS India Award 2008:[8], [9]
  • The initial BeleniX team was in the primary Times Of India newspaper:[10]
  • An early BeleniX developer Anil Gulecha who put BeleniX on a thumb drive was featured in the front page of Times Of India:[11]
  • SUN's CEO Jonathan Schwartz linked to Anil's and others TV interview video:[12]
  • Serverwatch article on BeleniX:[13]
  • BeleniX mentioned in ElReg:[14]
  • Linux.COM articles on BeleniX:[15], [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moinakg (talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Opensolaris list them all [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.37.134 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2009 (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.