Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNALinux (3rd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 14:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DNALinux

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article fails

WP:GNG and lacks third-party sources. Google shows no reliable sources, and while Google Books does include this which is very in-depth, it turns out the author of that book, Sebastian Bassi, is one of the two developers of DNALinux as seen on the distro's website so it is not an independent source. The other Google Books matches are all trivial mentions. Aoidh (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Aoidh (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not pass
WP:NSOFT. ––FormalDude talk 09:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment There is a modest independent review at EMBNet but that is not enough by itself for GNG. It's possibly worth a mention at BioLinux. But I don't have a strong opinion on this topic, hence the comment. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Linux distro. Andre🚐 16:04, 15 August 2022 (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.