Deletion of Ubuntu Christian Edition (2nd nomination)

Comment: per the nominator, this is just a minor variation on the Ubuntu distribution.  PLEASE NOTE:  is explicitly listed as an argument to avoid during deletion debates, and such !votes are quickly discounted.  This article has '''''NO RELIABLE THIRD PARTY SOURCES'''''.  Period
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: or '''Merge''' Most of these arguments are invalid, delete and keep alike. As has already been pointed out,  doesn't cut the mustard, but neither does "This product shouldn't exist"/aka - I don't like it. What matters is that the page is flagged with multiple borderline WP:RS sources and one patently obvious WP:RS, the print Catholic magazine. As stated above, we don't have a clear/good way to verify that source over teh intertubes, but that's true of most books and many magazines and does not invalidate the source. The relatively weaker sources, given their number, and the RS source are adequate. There is so much overlap between this and other similar projects that I believe it poor writing to deal with them separately, but this second AfD was probably not called for and the nom's rationale is partially inappropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: It has one possibly reliable source (''U.S. Catholic'') which is excerpted on the last reference. I can't see if the coverage is trivial or extensive.  Distrowatch does not have a review (nor links to any major publications that have reviewed it). The other references are blogs and/or forums which fail . I love to see the distros on here but it doesn't look good for this one. The talk page has a to do list that has been there for a bit. It doesn't look like it is progressing much
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)