From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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! 23:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Tinfoil Hat Linux

Tinfoil Hat Linux (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little to no notability— this article's only source is a FAQ by the creators of the distribution and the only relevant sources I've been able to find related to this distro are just copies of this page from other wikis. Dawnbails ( talk) 22:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weakest keep it's not well-sourced at the moment, but I'm finding a very small number of reviews and mentions in books - predominantly AUUG, but also two scholarly articles and a Slashdot review - that could potentially be added to the article. SportingFlyer T· C 22:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a majority of editors wanting to Keep this article but little work being done to improve sourcing which was mentioned as the primary problem in the nominator's statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I've added the scholarly refs, the magazine ref, and the slashdot ref (which is a minor secondary ref, and actually has a good primary ref deeper in it which, if the key can be verified, could be used for attributed quotes). I've left inline citations as an exercise for the reader. — siro χ o 10:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per siroxo's excellent work. See you all back here in 2027 for nomination #4, I suppose. -- Visviva ( talk) 21:21, 2 July 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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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! 23:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Tinfoil Hat Linux

Tinfoil Hat Linux (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little to no notability— this article's only source is a FAQ by the creators of the distribution and the only relevant sources I've been able to find related to this distro are just copies of this page from other wikis. Dawnbails ( talk) 22:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weakest keep it's not well-sourced at the moment, but I'm finding a very small number of reviews and mentions in books - predominantly AUUG, but also two scholarly articles and a Slashdot review - that could potentially be added to the article. SportingFlyer T· C 22:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a majority of editors wanting to Keep this article but little work being done to improve sourcing which was mentioned as the primary problem in the nominator's statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I've added the scholarly refs, the magazine ref, and the slashdot ref (which is a minor secondary ref, and actually has a good primary ref deeper in it which, if the key can be verified, could be used for attributed quotes). I've left inline citations as an exercise for the reader. — siro χ o 10:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per siroxo's excellent work. See you all back here in 2027 for nomination #4, I suppose. -- Visviva ( talk) 21:21, 2 July 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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook