- TurnKey Linux (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Article has been rewritten (User:Abd/TurnKey Linux) and cites multiple reliable sources. LirazSiri (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we have a link to the AfD, please?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There doesn't appear to be one: Guy A7'd it, and it was subsequently userfied. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then allow restoration. Aside from the sources Hobit correctly mentions below, it's appropriate for Wikipedia to contain plenty of information about free, open source content because of Wikipedia's own nature.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm almost positive there was an AfD or DrV, but I'm not finding it. Weird. Hobit (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "it's appropriate for Wikipedia to contain plenty of information about free, open source content because of Wikipedia's own nature" -- couldn't possibly disagree more. Everything is about proper sourcing; whether a software is open and free, or closed and commercial, shouldn't make the slightest difference. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow Restoration I vaguely recall the AfD, but just looking at the sources, I think there is enough there. The German source and infoworld both are RSes. The "WorkswithU" site is just one step (maybe) above a SPS. Linuxdevices seems to be a RS. Sources are a bit light on material, but there's enough for an article. Hobit (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore to mainspace. Just finished checking out the sourcing and I concur 100% with Hobit. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 3 and subsequently Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 9. Also, I believe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turnkey Software Projects is a related topic. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 05:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore. Sourcing now seems to have cleared up notability issues that may have affected earlier versions of the article that were previously under DRV. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore - nice work on acquiring the reliable refs. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore Probably as reliable as references will get for some open-source software. Spring12 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore Agree that the article has RS, not the greatest I've seen, but enough for a non-controversial subject. Infoweek is a major newspaper in the IT industry. I can't comment on comparison with previous version(s) without them to see, but this version look OK. — Becksguy (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|