Deletion of GNU/Linux naming controversy

Comment: Notability is not demonstrated since all of the sources used in this article fail . News group posts, web forum posts, articles on self-published websites, etc. are not reliable sources. Just because a subject is discussed on the Internet does not make it notable for our purposes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This seems to fall squarely into , given his position of "For every true user that says we want GNU/Linux, there's a 1/2 thug that says no."http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linux&diff=411280546&oldid=410848649.  Notability has been established with reliable sources.  Some of the sources are not reliable for establishing notability, but that is only an issue when ''none'' of the sources establish notability, and that is not the case here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The difficulty of writing in an |NPOV is not for deletion, but its |alternatives. More reliable sources are available, such as http://books.google.ca/books?id=Bb6IHlAyRRMC&pg=PA6&dq=Gnu+Linux+name&hl=en&ei=ZUvBTfezKsnyrQfM9_TWAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Gnu%20Linux%20name&f=false this one, http://books.google.ca/books?id=KjEq9Mua5TQC&pg=PA5&dq=Gnu+Linux+name&hl=en&ei=ZUvBTfezKsnyrQfM9_TWAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=why%20it%27s%20called%20gnu&f=false this one, http://books.google.ca/books?id=-pRt_DAd5BIC&pg=PA32&dq=Gnu+Linux+name&hl=en&ei=cUvBTda4OsSyrAeQ0bTvAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Gnu%20Linux%20name&f=false this one, and http://books.google.ca/books?id=ypJmzqt7JdUC&pg=PA324&dq=Gnu+Linux+name&hl=en&ei=cUvBTda4OsSyrAeQ0bTvAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Gnu%20Linux%20name&f=false this one that give some attention to the debate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:ATD)

Comment: we don't delete articles because they're "difficult to write about while taking an NPOV", unless someone deleted everything in :Category:Politics without telling me. This article is reasonably well written, well sourced with primary sources (but does need some help with secondary sources, which Crisco has made the first step towards above), and as far as I can see doesn't actually have any NPOV issues. I would also dispute the notability claims made by Nanobear. This seems to pass  - just because primary sources are used extensively in the article does not mean the secondary sources do not exist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: A former ''Featured Article'' that is well referenced, relatively complete and well written. For an article to be deleted though AFD the case has to be made that Wikipedia should not have an article on this subject, not that it needs improving, is hard to cover accurately, has POV issues or even . There is no problem using sources that take one position or the other in the controversy, as long as both sides are clearly presented in the article. From reading the references cited in the article this subject does exist, has been widely discussed in reliable references and is an encyclopedic topic for Wikipedia. No good case has been made here to delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)