Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedows OS

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 08:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedows OS

In the articles own words, "The project never really saw the light". Mostly unknown project, low on sources, no notable sources found and no claims to notability made. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the addition of these additional sources, which all look like reliable sources and have significant coverage and so establish notability. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the sources to the article and done a bit of rewriting but I think it could still do with some work. Anyone with better French or Portuguese than Babel Fish's would be handy too! Olaf Davis (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those aren't even slightly notable... As for the other (Computerworld), it doesn't claim notability for the operating system, it's a one off mention of it because of a secondary topic, so still not a single Verifiable source that the actual system is in the slightest bit notable (and it's not) - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looking more closely I now think that the Computerworld and silicon.fr articles are talking about a different project also called Freedows (the person who made this page also seems to think so). Unless someone disagrees with my new interpretation, then, they don't belong at all.

That leaves the article from The Chronicle of Higher Education, which you say isn't 'even slightly notable'. Did you mean notable, or reliable? The latter is surely what's relevant. Either way looking through the references on The Chronicle of Higher Education, which include an article in Time magazine, I get the impression that it's perfectly respectable and 'reliable'. What do you think? Olaf Davis (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Olaf and respect his intergity in contacting me about the Computerworld and silicon.fr articles errors. Ikip (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't refering to the site as being non-notable... but the actual reference, which isn't article, but an unreliable opinion piece that doesn't boost the popularity of the actual system. Also note that a single (even good) source is not good enough. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a news article rather than an opinion piece to me - it seems to just list facts about project and certainly gives me no indication of the author's opinion. What leads to you characterise it as an opinion piece?

As for multiple sources, WP:Notability says that multiple sources are preferred, and that "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." [emphasis added]. I interpret this 'may' to mean that articles based on single sources are allowable if not preferred. In any case, if you have a suggestion for such a broader topic to merge this into I'd gladly hear it, but my reading of WP:N does not suggest that having only a single source is grounds for deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would make a slight amount of (technical) sense, if the article in question had any news worthyness, but as I made clear, the main problem is that it is not a news worthy topic, it's a one off opinion piece about a system which has no recognition or notability anywhere. There is no broader "topic", this is a thing, not a topic and as such requires more than a single news site source (intuitevly) to be considered notable. There is no "significant coverage", no "reliable" sources, and having one criteria for inculsion fulfilled (a single source) is not grounds for inclusion when it fails to meet a single other criteria. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Olaf Davis. Ikip (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slashdot is not a reliable source and unfulfilled predictions are not worth much. WillOakland (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the Chronicle article I mentioned above? It was added to the article but subsequently removed, and I think it is a reliable source. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep PLEASE keep this article, we can improve it as an article, notability is not required of sources only verifiability and reliability, I think the sources cited above, especially the ComputerWorld article suffice as sources. This was a legitimate project with noble objectives, paralleled by other opensource projects. —-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above in response to Jimmi, I actually think the ComputerWorld article is talking about a completely different project. The Chronicle is the only source on which I'm willing to base notability. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "noble" or opensource is not grounds for inclusion. if you wnat a similar article, go see React OS, a system i have contributed code to in the past and which shows actually notability. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (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.