571:
mostly unsourced and the few keep votes there were did not produce a compelling argument. This was not notable - due to the open nature of the Linux kernel, branches thereof are a dime a dozen and this one in particular adds little compared to any other kernel + regular user-space Wine. And no, the official website linking to the article does not constitute a "kind of coverage on the sources". It just means that the developers decided that linking to their own
Knowledge (XXG) article made them noteworthy or special enough to advertise that on their main page. What they do on their own webspace certainly has nothing to do with what Knowledge (XXG) does.
372:
325:
doing any editorial review. It seems that many editors have a much lower standard of notability when it comes to articles about techno-geekery than about subjects that concern the vast majority of our target audience. This may be an encyclopedia mostly written by nerds, but it is not an encyclopedia
570:
model used by
Knowledge (XXG) and MediaWiki. The information provided was hardly useful - at best it mirrored information which ought to be available from the developer itself. It wasn't just someone's opinion that the article wasn't notable or was poorly formed: consensus was that the article was
348:
I thought that book looked fishy - thanks for clarifying that point. My impression is that the prejudice being displayed here is to favor open source topics. This is insufficient given the clear lack of independent sources and so I agree that we should
317:. Since when were "a pretty standard kernel development tree" and "the longevity of the article" reasons for having an article? No mainstream reliable sources have been presented, and the book mentioned by Colonel Warden is from
530:
and I have an extra copy myself, if it should be lost again. Another thing to keep in mind, is that the official website has made a link to the article, which could mean that there is a kind of coverage on the the sources.
155:
239:
which currently does not even mention this version. There's a book about this but the lack of significant references in other sources indicate that this lacks sufficient notability to stand by itself.
457:
Granted, the article itself needs sources. A quick google search, however, indicated the site had been covered in a number of reputable news sites, so I think it meets the criteria.
149:
110:
438:
Very hard to add anything beyond what Phil
Bridger has said, so I won't. The keep arguments here seem to make a case for inherent notability but I'm far from convinced.--
259:
216:- Nope. LUK is a pretty standard kernel development tree. In fact the longevity of the article suggests as much, and it's hardly a primary source article.
395:- LUK is not another Wine or anther Reactos. The technique of LUK is different from the one of Wine although LUK utilize lots codes of Reactos and Wine.
115:
83:
78:
87:
70:
507:
402:
578:
548:
17:
170:
137:
500:- The article had existed three years ago, it is deleted today. Sad, But what is the exact reason you resolve to delete it?
487:
36:
131:
586:
556:
540:
515:
472:
447:
430:
410:
386:
362:
339:
309:
292:
274:
249:
225:
207:
52:
127:
74:
186:
Article depends on majority of sources that lead to the project page. This is a variant of Wine thrown into the
486:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
358:
245:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
406:
582:
552:
511:
177:
574:
503:
398:
536:
335:
305:
443:
419:, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources, and IIRC that's the main issue of notability. --
221:
66:
58:
379:
354:
241:
163:
143:
466:
383:
288:
532:
425:
331:
301:
270:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
439:
458:
217:
378:
The nominator of this AFD has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of banned user
371:
318:
463:
284:
421:
266:
236:
187:
49:
527:
104:
192:
48:. No policy based keep votes and the consensus is that this is unsourced
547:
Thanks for the archive of the Linux
Unified Kernel article by the way.
480:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
100:
96:
92:
162:
176:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
490:). No further edits should be made to this page.
528:http://www.thefullwiki.org/Linux_Unified_Kernel
260:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
254:
258:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
321:, whose business model is based on
24:
566:- This is a great example of the
526:- The article is archived here:
370:
541:19:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
1:
557:08:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
516:11:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
473:01:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
448:01:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
431:01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
53:06:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
604:
587:00:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
411:01:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
387:18:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
363:23:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
340:22:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
310:23:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
293:18:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
275:16:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
250:11:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
226:09:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
208:23:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
483:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
283:per Shadowjams above. -
67:Linux Unified Kernel
59:Linux Unified Kernel
376:Administrator note
44:The result was
577:comment added by
506:comment added by
401:comment added by
277:
263:
595:
589:
518:
485:
469:
429:
413:
374:
264:
204:
201:
198:
181:
180:
166:
118:
108:
90:
34:
603:
602:
598:
597:
596:
594:
593:
592:
572:
501:
494:
488:deletion review
481:
467:
420:
396:
202:
199:
196:
193:
123:
114:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
601:
599:
591:
590:
560:
559:
544:
543:
520:
519:
493:
492:
476:
475:
451:
450:
433:
414:
380:Pickbothmanlol
368:
367:
366:
365:
355:Colonel Warden
343:
342:
319:VDM Publishing
312:
295:
278:
252:
242:Colonel Warden
228:
194:
184:
183:
120:
116:AfD statistics
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
600:
588:
584:
580:
576:
569:
565:
562:
561:
558:
554:
550:
546:
545:
542:
538:
534:
529:
525:
522:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:210.21.48.196
505:
499:
496:
495:
491:
489:
484:
478:
477:
474:
471:
470:
465:
460:
456:
453:
452:
449:
445:
441:
437:
434:
432:
427:
423:
418:
415:
412:
408:
404:
403:113.65.55.199
400:
394:
391:
390:
389:
388:
385:
381:
377:
373:
364:
360:
356:
352:
347:
346:
345:
344:
341:
337:
333:
329:
324:
320:
316:
313:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
294:
290:
286:
282:
279:
276:
272:
268:
261:
257:
253:
251:
247:
243:
238:
234:
233:
229:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
211:
210:
209:
206:
205:
190:pretty much.
189:
179:
175:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:Find sources:
121:
117:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
579:98.201.6.122
567:
563:
549:75.41.102.26
533:PowerPatrick
523:
497:
482:
479:
462:
454:
435:
416:
392:
375:
369:
350:
332:Phil Bridger
327:
322:
314:
302:David Gerard
297:
280:
255:
237:Linux kernel
231:
230:
213:
191:
188:Linux kernel
185:
173:
167:
159:
152:
146:
140:
134:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
573:—Preceding
502:—Preceding
440:Mkativerata
397:—Preceding
150:free images
218:Shadowjams
455:Weak keep
267:• Gene93k
575:unsigned
568:valuable
504:unsigned
399:unsigned
384:MuZemike
285:Welhaven
111:View log
564:Comment
524:Comment
468:Faraone
461:is now
422:Nuujinn
330:nerds.
156:WP refs
144:scholar
84:protect
79:history
50:Spartaz
436:Delete
417:Delete
353:this.
351:Delete
315:Delete
128:Google
88:delete
46:delete
235:into
232:Merge
171:JSTOR
132:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
583:talk
553:talk
537:talk
512:talk
498:Why?
444:talk
426:talk
407:talk
393:Keep
359:talk
336:talk
306:talk
298:Keep
289:talk
281:Keep
271:talk
256:Note
246:talk
222:talk
214:Keep
164:FENS
138:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
459:ffm
382:. –
328:for
323:not
265:--
178:TWL
113:•
109:– (
585:)
555:)
539:)
531:--
514:)
446:)
409:)
361:)
338:)
308:)
300:-
291:)
273:)
262:.
248:)
224:)
203:od
200:yP
197:Fr
158:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
581:(
551:(
535:(
510:(
464:L
442:(
428:)
424:(
405:(
357:(
334:(
304:(
287:(
269:(
244:(
220:(
195:☭
182:)
174:·
168:·
160:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
130:(
122:(
119:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.