Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinfoil Hat Linux

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 of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Linux distribution which this article describes is apparently completely defunct and receives no mention within the last several years (as returned by a Google search). This article serves no purpose and should be deleted. Ryan Reich 01:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There may be many people either using this product or interested in its history. Please provide better arguments for deletion than apparently defunct. -- JJay 01:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JJay. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 02:22Z
• Keep/Cleanup The article is useful but should be cleaned up a bit. Schlockading 03:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - this Linux distro doesn't seem to have all that much impact, but it does have some Google presence outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just being defunct is not a criteria for deletion. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is not just another "my first Linux distro." It had some interesting toys. Gazpacho 07:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I'm pretty sure I found out about TFHL from this article, so it's not worthless. Gazpacho 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per maru.ArgentiumOutlaw 07:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no claim to notability, no impact on any type of computing or society. -- Kjkolb 08:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only a little over 500 non-Wikipedia Google hits - that's very low for a Linux distribution or anything computer-related. Blackcats 10:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per JJay. -- jaredwf 11:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since I am unable to verify whether this is a hoax or not. A sample of the 600-odd Google hits give me (a) Wiki mirrors or (b) a single "announcement" posting which may or may not have been a joke. The "official site" has gone, I found no evidence that this really exists or existed. I can't find a Sourceforge project, I can't find a download site with the disk image. If anyone can demonstrate to me that this is not a joke or hoax, I will happily consider changing my vote. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Bordeline keep now - I am still not convinced that more than a handful of people ever used this, and secretly suspect it's Tuxcruft, but as a Linux wannabe I will go with the flow. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: The official site can be accessed through the Wayback Machine [1] -- jaredwf 14:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's definitely no hoax: I've used it. Now you can say you know somebody who has. :) ...I probably still have an .iso laying around somewhere... Turnstep 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is part of computing history and its ideas are important. Wikipedia is not just a catalog of currently available systems, it's comprehensive coverage of technology is one of its strengths. --agr 16:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability is too little. --Kilo-Lima 17:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If this distro was ever publically released it's a clear keep IMHO. But, as a long term Linux user (well over 10 years) I can't say I've ever heard of it. The WayBack machine link doesn't fill me with confidence, could easily be a 'vapourware' page. --kingboyk 17:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to follow the external link from the article and download the gzip'ed version of release 1.000 (but not the .img version, which appears first). It unzipped fine, but I haven't tried it on a system. It seems real enough. --agr 18:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well in that case I'd have to agree with user Jamyskis and say weak keep. Thanks agr. --kingboyk 19:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. To be fair, with so many distros floating around, very few Linux users, experienced or not, will know of all of them. I've been a user of Linux for four years and haven't heard of it. Many are just clones of existing distros. The notability of this distro is questionable, but if it holds true to its security credentials, then I think this would just about pass. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am willing to accept that this distro is instructive regarding secure-computing techniques. Not to mention that there is such a proliferation of pages on minor Linux distributions (some possibly defunct as well) that it is unfair to single out this one. However, the article needs a lot of attention: it is haphazard in its choices of what or what not to include and contains about as much opinion as fact. I think that the article, as it stands, is not worth having; therefore if we will keep it, we should rewrite it. Ryan Reich 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a pass at it earlier today. Let me know if anything else needs changing. --agr 22:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will post my suggestions on the article's talk page since there is no need to clutter up this page, which is for a more direct discussion of whether the article should go or not. Ryan Reich 23:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Terence Ong ^Talk 08:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - agr has really improved the page and I think it's now a useful enough source of information that it should stay. Ryan Reich 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - THL generated a fair amount of discussion when announced even if few people went to the trouble of actually using it. It's of historical interest even if now defunct. It's of cultural interest even if it's a hoax and never really existed (of course its existence or nonexistence should be verified for the article). Phr 08:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Genuine distribution, has established notability. Turnstep 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep dsws 02:19, 11 January 2006 (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.