Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POHMELFS

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 delete. May be notable in the future (perhaps after it comes out), but not at present.--Kubigula (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POHMELFS

Fails WP:N and WP:V. No sources or references at all. Looks like an advertisement. Undeath (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 54,000 ghits (I know, I know) indicates it's at least worth the time to look into this and help develop the article if at all possible... seems like it should be. Townlake (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect – I am no software expert, but wouldn’t this be better served as a merge and redirect to File System. Seems like a natural fit as the system is well reported on Google with over 68,000 hits. On the other hand, don’t you thing a {PROD} tag would have been more appropriate to place on the article, since it was only created 16 minutes before first you tried to first speedy and than placed into Afd. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Give the article a chance to get started. J kasd 20:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did a bit of research, and it looks like this is a product that's still deep in development. An article can wait until either it's released, or there's been a lot more said about it. A merge or redirect would be inappropriate, as POHMELFS is an example of a file system (and an unusual one, at that), not a synonym for the concept of file systems in general. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep I did similar research and came to the same conclusion. All the high-level results seem to be tester-generated or message board posts, which don't get the topic past WP:N or WP:V. Townlake (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If/when the software comes out, we can determine it's notability. For now, this one should go. J.delanoy ^gabs analyze 14:57, 4 June 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.