CalyxOS: Almost all references are primary.  GoFOSS, AlternativeTo and the F-Droid forums are user generated.  Kuketz is self-published, MakeUseOf is very borderline (barely above a group blog) and AndroidAuthority is purely a passing mention.  That leaves three articles by Moritz Termmel.  I searched, and found no suitable book sources, or significant coverage in other reliable publications.  It could plausibly be "presumed" notable, but in practice, I really don't think we have enough for an article, since it would be hard to provide even a basic overview without needing to "fill the gaps" with primary sources.  DFlhb ( talk ) 17:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  DFlhb ( talk ) 17:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Please also see Talk:CalyxOS .  CalyxOS is widely known in phone alternative "ROM" circles, and GrapheneOS supporters frequently criticize it.  I'm trying hard to assume good faith here, but I've interacted with DFlhb before; They supported completely removing cited information on GrapheneOS involvement with the ANOM police sting.  [6] IMO, the info' somewhat reflected badly on GrapheneOS and the primary developer.  However, it is strange that XDA Developers does not include either in their 2023 "most popular custom roms" list.  [7] In an article on the ANOM sting, XDA said "This is how the bootloader on a Pixel phone can be locked after flashing a security-hardened custom ROM like CalyxOS or GrapheneOS, and it's likely how the FBI also loaded ArcaneOS onto the Pixel phones they sold to criminals." [8] Alternative "ROMs" are a somewhat obscure topic for Wikipedia, and most of the articles have marginal sourcing, and a lot of COI editing, to be frank.  There are more recent sources not included in CalyxOS .   I can't get to the actual book, but the summary says: "There are actually a few of these, but the one I would recommend is CalyxOS ." [9] Billionaire Jack_Dorsey 's Start Small [10] is giving a million dollars to Calyx Institute and much of that will likely go to CalyxOS one of their primary projects. Almost any time GrapheneOS is discussed or sold, CalyxOS is mentioned, and sometimes criticized. [11] -- Yae4 ( talk ) 07:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've responded to the insinuations on talk page . I have access to that book, and that sentence is the only passing mention of CalyxOS in it (fails WP:SIGCOV ). It goes without saying that NitroPhone and Dorsey's sites are not reliable secondary sources. DFlhb ( talk ) 09:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Yae4 : BTW, that book is in the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library , which you should have access to. Check it out, it's a great resource — DFlhb ( talk ) 20:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding: Note the 3 Tremmel reviews were in two different publications, Golem.de and Linux Magazin. At Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive_1#Any_comments_on_new_golem.de_source? for a similar article, it was a single golem.de citation that pushed GrapheneOS over the notability hurdle, according to User:Newslinger now a wiki-admin. I've added a few more citations from the book and scholar searches; it's not clear to me what DFlhb is talking about re "suitable" books. Kuketz is considered expert in IT, and anyone actually reading the series of detailed reviews of independent alternative phone operating systems should see that. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 17:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as while the article's references suffered from a prevalence of primary sources, this distribution stands out among Android ROMs for various reasons, many of which are covered by the Linux Magazine (German edition) reference that I've added to the article, which is a lengthy (definitely not incidental) monographic review of CalyxOS. The article about Linux Magazine should, I believe, serve to establish notability of this publication. LjL ( talk ) 18:36, 13 April 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.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep