English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Wubi (Ubuntu)

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. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wubi (Ubuntu)

No assertion of notability, the first five pages of google show absolutely no signs of notability or reliable sources, no relevant results on Google News, no results on Google Scholar seem relevant. It makes me sad, since I love Ubuntu and Open Source, but this article presents no display of notability-- all of the references are forum systems, not a single source from an outside perspective. lucid 15:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Appears unsourceable. Jakew 18:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge into Ubuntu (Linux distribution). The installer does some rather neat things (I consider it notable in terms of being a non-partitionaing method for installing Ubuntu on a Windows system) and there should be mention of it somewhere on Wikipedia, even if just put into a section of the main Ubuntu article (which currently links to the Wubi article). -- Limulus 19:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge Sadly Wubi isn't notable (no Gnews hits, for example) but I believe a 'trivial' mention in the Ubuntu article would be justified. Computerjoe 's talk 21:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Ubuntu if it is notable enough.— JyriL ^talk 22:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
KeepLooks good to meHentai Jeff 03:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep I actually agree with lucid's basic assertions, but this is simply a case where mechanistic and rigid application of WP:N is not in the interests of the project. When multiple people who are well-informed with the subject matter all think to themselves "hmmm ... I would have thought this to be notable, but alas, it is not on Google Scholar (yet), even though it should probably be in Wikipedia anyway" ... then it should probably be in Wikipedia anyway. This is an appeal to the collective insight and sagacity of WP contributors who know compelling and legitimate content when they see it. WP:N should not be used as a self-imposed intellectual straight-jacket. dr.ef.tymac 05:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I never said that "I would have thought this to be notable", I said that it makes me sad to delete something I like for the sake of the encyclopedia. --lucid 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: I never said you said that. In fact, I never said anyone (in specific) said that. It was a reference to a particular "state of mind" (please re-see the words: "think to themselves"). Probably more than zero Wikipedians have shared that "state of mind".

Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps I'm wrong. There may indeed be zero people out there who have thought that or something similar. No biggie. Life goes on. No one is here to put words in your mouth, or tell you what to think, or hijack the buttons on your computer keyboard.

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. dr.ef.tymac 15:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Wubi has been making some news lately on digg and other sources which piqued my interest and lead me to this wiki page. I would like to see more information (for example an analysis on the performance impacts of this system), not less. 70.171.53.143 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Digg is not a WP:RS, nor is it a qualifier for WP:WEB. In addition, see WP:INTERESTING --lucid 19:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Follow-up: He's not saying that Digg should be used as a source; he's saying that he heard about it there and wanted to learn more... And isn't that what an encyclopedia should do? (help people learn more about a given subject) I think this is a good example of why "there should be mention of [Wubi] somewhere on Wikipedia" as I previously said. Also, why did you reference the "Notability (web)" link? ("This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia.") It makes little sense in this context since he's not even remotely suggesting a Digg article and the Wubi article isn't about the website. -- Limulus 21:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
KeepWubi is a recent development, and is still beta software, which may explain why there has been little news coverage. However, I noticed that CNet TV has reviewed Wubi; see the third external link. Would this qualify as an objective, 3rd-party source? Minhmeoke 23:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep For other objective, 3rd-party sources see http://www.download.com/8301-2007_4-9723017-12.html which is a featured review of Wubi from Download.com and http://news.softpedia.com/news/Install-Ubuntu-from-Windows-in-3-Steps-Without-Using-a-CD-61304.shtml which is a featured review of Wubi from Softpedia. Tuxcantfly 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's not speculative, and it's fairly significant software that already--even in Beta form--appears to have lots of press. Is there any honest reason to acknowledge it won't just grow in time? The article will just get bigger • Lawrence Cohen 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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.