Deletion of Paludis

Comment: unless the notability of this package manager is made apparent using |reliable and independent sources. (The nomination is poorly argued. Neither being unfinished nor having a small audience are criteria for deletion, and the |presence or absence of other topics has no bearing on a particular topic's fit within the guidelines. Finally, whether or not the article is |an attempt at publicity (|By whom?, it must meet |notability requirements, in particular |those for software. In the future please make a deletion argument based in a policy or guideline of Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:WAX||WP:SPAM||WP:COI||WP:N||WP:SOFTWARE)

Comment: per , and the lack of outside coverage on the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Simply per  and the reasoning of Dhartung
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: looks to me like we have a case where folks don't know to read |the notability standards but instead are relying on us believing their personal words.  Sorry folks, but the key to avoiding deletion is to use third-party reliable sources providing coverage of this software.  The nominator really should have made this clear, but oh well
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: fails  and reads like 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SPAM)