Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Edition

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 no straightforward consensus but Wikipedia has a systemic (and sometimes helpful) bias towards IT topics. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Edition

Contested prod. Article is about a version of Ubuntu that does not really indicate why it is notable, as it doesn't really appear to be any different than any other version of Ubuntu. TN‑X-Man 13:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent third party sources to establish notability. Appears to be a fair blatant attempt at promotion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Article on Debian distro that doesn't assert notability and appears to have authorship WP:COI/WP:SPA issues. Guliolopez (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know if this is the right place to put this, I'm sorry if it isn't. I added the third party sources that I used. This is my first Wiki and I though I covered all the bases. It is not meant to be an article of promotion, just an article of education. I have seen a few articles on Wiki that already help to promote Ultimate Edtion. Those articles always refer to it as Ubuntu Ultimate Edition. I saw that many of the other Ubuntu derivatives have pages here and thought it would be nice for Ultimate Edition to have one of it's own. There is no bias involved, I will admit that I still have some work to do on it, and if needed I can do that on my own page. Thank you for your time.

Keep just needs the refs sorted--UltraMagnus (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally do not believe in deleting this article. Point of the matter Ubuntu recognizes Ultimate Edition as another OS. The facts are correct and I hope more information will be added, and not taken away from the public. Acowboydave (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep or redirect. Redirecting to List of Ubuntu-based distributions is probably the best thing to do for now. I think just deleting it may be to harsh, since it is mentioned at "List of Ubuntu-based distributions" SF007 (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per User:SF007 because this article really does not have anything that makes itself notable. Also, lack of inline citations didn't help. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused as to what makes one think this article is not notable. After browsing through other Ubuntu based distros I find that very few if any add anything of real value to be considered notable. Example: Linux Mint is not very much different from Ubuntu. It uses a different theme and 1 panel bar instead of 2. It also comes with a few new tools. OZOS is Ubuntu using a different desktop. If these are considered notable, and note neither of these use any inline citations in the articles, then how can Ultimate Edition not be considered notable. Also note, both Linux Mint and OZOS use the Ubuntu repos. Linux Mint has it's own repo but only contains Mint tools. Ultimate Edition has it's own repo with newer packages than Ubuntu offers. Also while Ubuntu locks their repos, Ultimate Edition's repos are not locked. Please explain why OZOS and Linux Mint would be considered notable while Ultimate Edition would not. I'm really confused as to what you are looking for. I followed examples and wrote it in a factual on unbiased manner. I listed my sources. I dotted my i's and crossed my t's. Sorry, but I really am confused as to what is considered notable here when I see other articles that show that they are really no different from Ubuntu at all. I don't mean to sound harsh, but it is very frustrating reading comments like this when I'm only trying to make a new artcle to educate users. Everywhere else only post that Ultimate Edtion is just Ubuntu with more software added, when this is simply not true. ZeroPrime0806 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroPrime0806 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per reliable sources with significant independent coverage (especialy the linux.com article). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2008 (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.