Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real vmx

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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real vmx and vmx

Non-notable software; no google hits or independent reviews. Blowdart | ^talk 16:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Vmx changed to redirect to Real vmx since it was a fork/copy of the article created by probable sockpuppet. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This is not about a band, organization or anything like that. It's about an operating system released under GPL GNU public license. This means that it is the property of everyone in the whole world. I haven't seen the name of any organization or person (that doesn't already exist on the English Wikipedia) in this article.

If your wish is that every device in the future will run Windows XP please delete this article. But all your deceives will be very slow. I don't know if there is any commercial organization supporting you? And as a result of that they have forced you do delete this article. I though Wikipedia was for the community not the big corporations!?

Try entering "real vmx" at google:

This is what i get: Google hits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC) — Alexuspol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dude, WP:TLDR. Also, please don't create headers in a deletion discussion, don't forget to sign your posts, and don't top-post either. The home page is not third party, it's a primary source. Admittedly I know bupkis about Windows, but I still fail to see how this meets the general notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not been the subject of significant coverage from a reliable, independent source. vmx.wikidot.com is a self-published source [1]. Not much to pick from the 33 google hits. Above comments indicated a faliure to understand what Wikipedia is, and I urge those users to familiarize themselves with the basic Wikipedia:Five pillars. Marasmusine (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. As noted above, the information cannot be verified by an independent, reliable source. Accordingly, the software is also not notable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Alexuspol, reformatted:
Swedish Wikipedia Article The know what this is all about The Swedish Wikipedia was very friendly and supportive, take an example from them!!

Another source Another Real VMX Homepage —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The homepage is exactly that: a user's homepage. It is not independent and, therefore, not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)As for the sv.wikipedia article, it looks to be a straight translation of what's on en.wikipedia. The problem is, their inclusion standards may be more lax than ours. Other stuff exists, and this discussion is only on the English version of the article and how it relates to the English Wikipedia guidelines of notability, verifiability, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm Swedish so I wrote that article first, although published later.

Why can't you just download the source code and verify the product yourself, before you accuse me that it don't exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 17:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me to explain how I can improve this article so it will be to your satisfaction I'm not native English language, though I spend several days on this article. If you have any suggestions, please help me rewrite this article, so it will be accepted!?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs)

That's already been covered above. The article does not demonstrate it is notable. The easiest way to demonstrate notability is to show substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Independent sources would include trade journals, newspapers, major news websites, etc. Self-published and fan sources are not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So delete it then right away if that satisfies your needs! I don't have time for this I will continue to work on the product instead. So you might accept it in the future... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 17:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This must be an independent source Close to the middle of the page Blackducksoftware —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs)

All that establishes is that the software was released. Being released is not a claim of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to continue discussion on how to improve the article, I'll be glad to do so on Talk:Real vmx. However, the discussion here should focus on why the article should(n't) be deleted. If something comes up in the improvements, we can report it back here at that point. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software package. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I AfD-ed a similar (same?) article for identical reasons. TN‑X-Man 19:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See roughly zero chance of any evidence of notability arising in the near future. Also not too impressed by attempt to evade deletion by posting the same article under another name. Oh, and by the way, I use Linux and encourage everyone else to do so, so you can't accuse me of being in the pocket of Microsoft. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it! Can't understand why you have to be so mean, just delete it without any personal attacks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it then! Can't understand why you have to be so mean, just delete it without any personal attacks.
- What, you mean like this, or this, or this or this? (I'd rather not get involved in this sort of discussion, but I exception to being accused of personal attacks.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can live without you attempts to break down my spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't take part in this discussion anymore It just gets me more sad, it's your site and I respect

that you are the ones in charge of what's get pubished here. Bye bye... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not a notable piece of software, and it's in pre-alpha stage. I suppose pre-alpha means "I haven't finished coding it yet." - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources at all to help this article. It's in pre-alpha stage, which could fall in WP:CRYSTAL. Does anyone agree with me on this? ~Beano~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There are only two editors who have added substantive content - Alexuspol and an IP address. If they are the same person, then this could be speedied as 'one editor who requests deletion', given the response from Alexuspol above. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly. Failing that, there's the WP:SNOWBALL clause. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the self-important self-promotion, bring on the Windows. WillOakland (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it's a big crime to try to do something yourself without financial backup. To all you kids out there never try to do something on your own in your life. All the people in the world have one wing, but if you every try to fly we will say. Stay on the ground, and if you ever try to fly again we will cut of your wing so you never try again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very inspiring. Maybe you should run for President of the World. WillOakland (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is indeed a working VxWorks like operating system, it has been verified by Al-Hambra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemyz (talk • contribs) 11:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC) — Jemyz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry, but some random student's personal web page is not a reliable source --Blowdart | ^talk 11:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least i got someone to support me now! So you can't feel so pleased with yourselfs when you are all simultaneously attacking one alone person. It is just half as hard when you have one person that believes in you... One person to share you thoughts with. One friend...I love you all!!!

Keep Karolinska Institutet (Institute of medical research) in Sweden: The development team of Human Brain Atlas supports Real VMX fully... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 12:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be missing the point and turning this into a soapbox. How exactly is some random weird homepage, hung off a dynamic DNS site proof of anything? Indeed what does the support mean for a piece of software that is "pre-alpha", whatever that means. Really, getting fellow students to register and vote doesn't do you any favours whatsoever. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that, according to the Real VMX website, the project administrator is named alexuspol. At best, User:Alexuspol would seem to have a conflict of interest in the article—which could be easily corrected if there were independent reliable sources about the article. At worst, I'm thinking that the motives behind this article may be as much to promote and advertise the software as to write a neutral article. —C.Fred (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are weak, look at all the names on Brain Atlas Support Team, the Real VMX project only has 3 members according to the sourceforge page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The person Per Karlsson on this page From Karolinska Institutet can verify that Brain Atlas Support Team is indeed associated with them. You can also find his signature in the list of names at Brain Atlas Support Team.

Wow. Yes. A doctoral student. That's great. You really don't get what makes notability here. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a student now, he is head of the MRI-PET psychiatric department at KI. Therefore he can verify that this page Brain Atlas is associated with Karolinska instututet, and that department. Your arguments are becoming more and more childish. If you want to do some serious investigation then get to work, so we can settle this matter once and for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important, English Wikipedia under investigationI got a phone call from Josef Aranki one minute ago. And he will talk to a professional investigating journalist who will look into this matter. We are suspecting censorship of the English Wikipedia motivated by National or Commercial interests. And I believe that Wikipedia is supposed to be a community based cyclopedia, free from this kind of interests. Then if this is not the case then something have to be done about it, or at least people should know about it. Otherwise people will take this for a reliable source, when it's actually a forum for political influence motivated by National and commercial interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your threats are not welcome and may well cause you to be banned. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see why an investigation could pose a threat to you if these accusations false. Instead you would welcome these activities to be accepted as a more reliable source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is Delete as I am politically influenced and motivated by National and commercial interests, but also because it isn't notable.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* You can be influenced by whatever you want, but not when you edit Wikipedia because it should be free from these kind of interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation I think you could at least give me an explanation why this article is so dangerous! to the public. Don't give me your standard arguments like self-promotion or lack of independent sources I think you have got evidence enough to make up your own mind about that. Every thinking person see that there is something else behind this. I don't know if it's about friends sticking together (which is nice), but not always to best for the general public. Or if there really are some other interests behind this. Anyway look at the sources and make up your own mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware the standard arguments, like independent sources, are the basis for all of the articles on Wikipedia. This guide demonstrates what reliable sources are and why they are important. This guide on verifiability may also be of interest. TN‑X-Man 14:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete In the strongest possible terms. When are we going to have a speedy for software? WP:ONNTSA ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

So I interpret the section break as: The settle about independent sources is settled. Either there are sources or there are not. That's just facts, you can't argue with that. No matter how motivated you are be some specific interest.

Arbitrary section break 1

Delete - I see no indication that this meets the project's inclusion/notability requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per all of the above delete comments, and also possibly block the author for harassment, making legal threats and disruption. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An investigation by a private or professional journalist can't be considered an illegal threat. It's just about his personal interest or the newspapers own interest... If nothing is printed there is no case...

Block opinion So when you are out of arguments, the democracy is over. Simply block all opinion.

Notability Okej! So the next case I have to ague about is the notability. I will get back to you on that... Just give me a little more time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.121.253 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 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.