Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visopsys

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visopsys

People want to delete Apollo OS (AfD discussion), which is actually much better than this article. So this meets and exceeds the criteria specified here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoKindOfName (talk • contribs) 2008-11-21 16:22:13

Delete This is a retaliatory nomination, but the article does appear to fail WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ukexpat. Partition Logic might be notable, but Visopsys is not. hbent (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Hairy Perry 19:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have all read the sources by Fabrizio Pani before reaching these conclusions, right? Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two short articles do not amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources". – ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note I believe MikeOS falls under the criteria, but it's too much work to afd articles. I'll see if I can do it later. NoKindOfName (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: turns out someone ukexpat already did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoKindOfName (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking notability. Spiteful and retaliatory nomination, however. X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:01, 22 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.