Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armbian

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armbian

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Armbian

[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)

~~Reads like an advertisement, notability and verifiability thresholds not met. Pecopteris (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete per nom, It is clearly not notable, a WP:BEFORE search delivered no usable sources. The article content is, at best, merely an WP:EXIST description sourced entirely from closely related web pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second it, as the guy who brought the article in question on Treehouse. I think that the article was hopeless to make it adhere to Wikipedia standards in the beginning. My alternate opinion was to make the article a redirect instead but I don't know if it's necessary. Signed, Lucss21a | Talk | Contribs 16:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources with significant coverage found: [1][2][3][4] 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those all look pretty decent. However, "Armbian Ubuntu 23.04 can now run on Lenovo X13S Arm laptop" looks kinda like a primary source because of its wording but I wouldn't toss it yet. (Who knew there were so many Linux websites) ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 11:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. LWN.net, which tends to be great, has an article too. DFlhb (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only if somebody knowledgeable does something useful with the article. Otherwise, it should be reduced to an external link in the article on the ARM processor family... (The link mentioned would be to the project's main page.) Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that the article has been significantly altered. In my opinion, the current article, while in need of expansion, no longer reads like an advertisement, and meets both notability and verifiability thresholds by linking to multiple secondary sources. Perhaps this AFD should be closed?

I don't want to do that unilaterally at this time, since I'm the one who opened the AFD, but if nobody closes this or objects in the next few days, I'll probably go ahead and do so. Pecopteris (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Pecopteris, the procedure you want is nominator withdrawal, but note that this requires persuading all delete supporters to change or rescind. 2406:3003:2077:1E60:2CDD:52B2:24E4:FE55 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article now means notability and verifiability thresholds, in my view. Thanks for relisting, @Liz! Pecopteris (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pecopteris, since you are the nominator, and your nomination counts as a Delete vote, it would be best if you crossed out your nomination statement (or part of it) and place this vote underneath your nomination statement. Right now, it looks like you voted twice so one of them has to be crossed out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 2 September 2023 (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.