Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SECOS

Appears to be imaginary. Google searches for "Thomas Ashworth" AND "Ian Renton" or "Thomas Ashworth" AND SECOS don't find anywhere else that mentions this. The original author maintains that this is real and claims to have been one of the testers. Dan Gardner 04:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Almost impossible to verify. No company names or other solid information to search on. However, the article said SECOS was developed in 2000 and was originally known as A&R Linux. Google gets just 7 hits for "A&R Linux" -- the links that aren't dead are from 1998, before SECOS was supposedly developed. Delete unless author can present evidence of validity. SWAdair | Talk 06:10, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• It is NOT imaginary. There is life outside of Google and other search engines. My Grandad doesen't have any google hits, does that mean he didn't exist. The reason why you couldn't find A&R Linux is because it was a PERSONAL distribution, only two people used it. It was only when SECOS was released did I get told about it. SECOS used to have a website, where the redirect url still exists but it got deleted in the sands of time. If you delete it on the basis of Google hits then you should delete my other articles on legitmate but obscure topics, such as Rubbish, King of the Jumble. If I had wrote this artcle back in 2000 (wikipedia didn't exist then) you would have had plenty of so called "Google hits" about SECOS. Since the website is gone I am preserving the memory of SECOS.
  • Delete- a OS that was only a personal distribution, that was only used by two people, is not famous enough to be included in an encyclopedia. And my signing Lyellin 08:59, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Then how about the many other Linux distributions that have a small userbase??? SECOS was used a lot more than two people, I was one of them. It is notable enough for me to write an article about it, and there are 6,994,622 articles in the wikipedia, all notable to at least the person who wrote it. Wiki is not paper, we can afford to have unusual articles. Multics was famous, but has no users today, should it be deleted under the same reasons? How about early versions of UNIX and DOS, their user base is close to zero as well. Krik 09:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• User:Krik, the author of this page, deleted it from Vfd in a minor edit. I am restoring it. Dan Gardner 17:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I wasn't planning to vote on this, but the author's actions in apparently vandlising VfD to prevent its deletion [1] [2] do not inspire confidence. Therefore, delete. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 17:45, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)
• Vanity page, delete. Morwen - Talk 17:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Comments. I removed this from VFD temporaily so I could fix the article up to keep standard, so please regard votes for deletiton because of that reason as invalid. I also must point out that Dan Gardner has not made any useful contributions for a while, only complaining about these pages. I must stress again that these are real, and notabilty only depends on your opinion. I could post a lot of famous people on VFD because *I* think they are un-notable. Since the concensous is unfair in this vote I plan to repost these articles if they get deleted. Krik 22:11, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Regarding the above: it is true that I have not posted in a while, largely because I was busy with other things. As school recently got out for the summer, I will probably be posting more now. In any case, I do not think that how much I have contributed is relevant here. Please provide evidence for your claims. Dan Gardner 22:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Recreation of validly deleted articles is a valid reason for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. Please provide evidence that this exists. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is not a dumpster, either. Morwen - Talk 23:25, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • But it isn't valid if the voters are biased. The same thing happened to me with Norman Walsh. I have extended the article with more technical information, a screenshot, and a link to the dead website.If it didn't exist I wouldn't be defending this article. Krik 23:48, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Never ran on more than 4 systems. Source code lost, so no longer available. Minor changes from Linux by the sound of it, so not really unique either. Doesn't sound encyclopic to me. If this stays, I want to add my single floppy linux OS I made that is currently running on about 200 computers. --ssd 00:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• As with DNIX, I don't feel this merits an article of it's own, but all of these sort of thing do deserve a topic at Minor *nix operating systems. Individually, these are not notable, but the topic as a whole is an interesting, valid and encyclopaedic one. SkArcher 03:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)