Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkyOS (2nd nomination)

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 was keep. faithless (^speak) 22:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SkyOS

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

Was nominated for deletion on March 2, but the

96 14:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. This image suggest significant independent coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable. --Oldak Quill 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - querulous and way too soon renomination - renominating a week later clogs up AFD unneccessarily and unfortunately can come across as an editorially unhealthy interest in the matter of deleting the article - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was still open--I only relisted it because I suspected nobody could tell whether consensus was reached due to the large number of IP =!votes.

96 15:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Fails to meet notability guidelines and contains copious original research. The article has improved since the last AfD, but I believe the notability to be fundamental to the topic is lacking. This OS is used by at most a handful of people, and the only place where is even (rarely) reported on is OSNews, which is a blog/news site dedicated to all forms of operating systems obscure or otherwise. While the article no longer reads as an advertisement (as a result of the previous AfD) this article seems to be used as a platform by its author to get more traffic to his website as a type of marketing tool. I believe this to be an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. ~~Imacreditcard (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)~~ Edit: Removed vote due to additional references being added.[reply]
- Since it seems that I am not allowed to vote else the article will get renominated, I would just like to point out that this was the person who originally nominated the article for deletion. He mentions following the project on OSNews closely enough to know how often it is mentioned (rarely, you say?), claims to have researched it enough to know its usage statistics, and is persistent about the article's use as an advertisement, which we can all agree it no longer is. I feel it's safe to assume that he has a negative, preexisting bias toward the project. It's not a huge leap to make. Many advocates of
  FOSS seem to take personal offense to SkyOS. As he is not a respected contributor to Wikipedia and has made very few (one, in fact) other contributions, I am led to believe that he targeted the SkyOS article in malice. Alex Forster (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Comment: First of all I suggest you read
    WP:FAITH. Secondly, I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a very long time, just not with a user account. Thirdly, the article which I nominated for deletion is not the same article as it exists today, the sections which were clearly vanity and advertisement were removed and the article was expanded greatly. Notice how I do not claim the article is an advertisement anymore. Forthly, it is not my job to try to prove the article is not notable, it is the job of the article to prove notability, which it fails to do so. I like many Wikipedians, do want Wikipedia to be a good encylopedia, not a collection of company press releases or random spam. And even if this article doesn't end up getting deleted, as a result of this AfD it is at least in a better condition then it was before. There is no malice to see here. Imacreditcard (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep; the article needs improvement, but the question is the subject notable. The image that Martijn Hoekstra points to shows it has at least one significant source, and I'm sure there's more. The standards for notability aren't high, and any desktop OS, independently writte, actually used by a handful of people is going to meet that standard. Frankly, if we have a good article, why should we care if people point to the article for whatever reason, or copy (in accordance with the GFDL) for whatever reason? In this case, the subject is notable, so it's our job to make that article good.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a magazine cover is a good place to start for significant sourcing.
matt91486 (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - yes, it's a real open source project, no, it's not in any significant way notable. And the article is anecdotal and promotional rather than encyclopedic. Should every piece of vanityware on Sourceforge have a page here?
talk) 16:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Considering you have an entry
AtheOS? These are both one man projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.61.99 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

No, but I don't see anyone asking for that. The magazine cover seems to indicate that there is significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Unfortunately, I can't verify the contents of the magazine article myself, and I don't know how significant the coverage is. On the other hand, putting it on the cover of a magazine usualy means there is an in-depth article about it. That alone satisfies
WP:N. That it's a real open source project is not really relevant to the discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

22 other mentions of SkyOS on Wikipedia, passes the Google test with flying colors Alex Forster (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia wiki-linking itself or "Google search results" are invalid forms of notability tests. Wikipedia requires reliable references from valid third parties. The only one approaching a notability test is the said Magazine cover you added. However, this lacks any details about the magazine or the contents, also making it invalid. If you have an real references, page numbers (etc), I suggest you add them to the article. Imacreditcard (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can I ask you imacreditcard what your beef is with SkyOS, because obviously goes beyond a mere notability issue? Have you seen the number of small OS pages on Wikipedia that have far less citations? I don't see you hammering for the deletion of Visopsys, Atheos or HelenOS. A305w (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no beef with SkyOS, I have had beef with the way the article was presented. It's a much better article now, but it is not notable topic.
Comment: And Visopsys is? Why haven't you gone after that topic?A305w (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imacreditcard (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a significant project with enough media coverage. Given the smarts they're showing, I predict that this will be a notable OS when released, so why delete an article we'll have to recreate later? (BTW, SkyOS is not open-source, and is intended to be a commercial product one day. Also, the article needs a bit of copyediting.) CWC 13:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful, interesting, and informative article. I'm surprised this has been suggested for deletion twice. Sсοττ5834^talk 14:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article was nominated twice due to a misvote. Random IP addresses and user accounts voting twice plagued the last nomination and made it difficult for administrators to come to a clear decsion. Imacreditcard (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This sort of article is precisely what I come to the wiki for. How else are we to make a historical accounting of OS development 50 years from now? Maury (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could clearly do with more development, but it seems notable enough (not a massive number of references, but I found enough to count it as being ok), and certainly of interest to those concerned with operating systems. - Bilby (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable, Media Covered, Notable - Significant to Operating System architectural progress; original and functional, not just an educational experiment, not just a fork of an existing operating system. Thinko 15:16, 10 March 2008
Keep Well sourced, and has hopes of further sources in the future. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was one of those faceless IPs that posted on the last one of these AfD discussions. My stance doesn't change. SkyOS has a place in Wikipedia. GregV (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Needs more secondary sources (linking to the SkyOS website doesn't count), but the magazine cover linked above suggests enough notability to give this article a chance to collect such sources. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SkyOS is notable merely for being a new, original OS that is not another Linux/BSD/Solaris distribution or clone of an previously existing OS. This is something that does not happen terribly often in the computing world. (I'd sign in with my actual username for this, but I've forgotten the password, and didn't have an email address associated with it. Sigh.) 121.45.69.253 (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is already a link in the article to the full text of the magazine found by Martijn. There are 3 pages of coverage starting on page 16.
Phil Bridger (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Found is a big word here, the image was in the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everyone just open eyes and check google with Sky OS over 1 000 000 results by now and growing. --GODhack (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice article on an interesting alternate OS. A305w (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a
WP:N for me is that it does appear to be valuable information and is part of a progression of operating systems. The article has fulfilled the criteria for notability.--Pmedema (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete The OS is nonnotable. Half is written like an advertisement, and the other half is completely unsourced. RogueNinja_talk 19:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "nom" didn't even say "delete", let alone "strong delete", so what do you mean by that?
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, I confused this nomination with the previous one. I have added a better rationale.

Keep. Informative - even if this isn't the post popular OS in the world. For those who think the content is a bit too promotional - rather than delete it, why not edit it to make it more NPOV?--Rich0 (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SkyOS does in fact have a fairly significant user base, and the magazine thing shows independent coverage. Wikipedia has articles on projects far, far less significant than this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.165.95 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep --LimoWreck (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please justify your votes, this is not a votation, but a discussion of reasons --Enric Naval (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has some independient third party source, including mentions on slashdot, and is under development, so it will probably become more famous with time --Enric Naval (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2008 (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.