Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DexOS

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. Since the outcome is clear and there is some offsite canvassing that will just clutter the discussion I'll bring the shutters down now. The vast majority of the keep votes are non-policy based and have very littkle weight as a result. The one substantial keep vote asserts that the sources are notable but the overhwhealming consensus of established editors with policy based arguments is that the sources do not cut the mustard. The delete side is therefore a hands down winner. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DexOS

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}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Looks to be a non-notable free/open source operating system. JBsupreme (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've reviewed round-ups of this kind of software recently, and saw no mention of this one. I see that there are some references in the article, but they're all blogs, and the coverage is a paragraph + screenshot at the most. The most serious one is [1], a company blog. DexOS gets even [2] less coverage in OSNews than MikeOS. Pcap ping 01:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just weighing in and ignoring all rules :) I hope DexOS gets significant coverage one day... rCX (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how is this AfD preventing you from improving Wikipedia? Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:RCX has performed a copy/paste move of this article to User:RCX/DexOS. I think there are some licensing problems with this action should the article be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't think what I was doing was wrong. I'll remove the subpage. rCX (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. DexOS is the only game sys OS, that is open source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.100.219 (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DexOS is one of the few really independent, not posix-based, free OS. Also, it's the only OS whith a GUI that is not window based —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.1.220.106 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That alone doesn't establish notability. Significant coverage in reliable third-party sources is what establishes notability. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple, independent sources already in article. LotLE×talk 22:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existence does not equal notability, and there are no reliable third-party sources to establish that or verifiability; the references on the page consist of a home page and blog posts, which are not considered reliable sources. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Verifiable independent source here: http://royal.pingdom.com/2008/09/26/10-amazingly-alternative-operating-systems-and-what-they-could-mean-for-the-future/ 174.112.211.143 (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I already discussed that source above. It's a company blog, probably the source here that's closest to a WP:RS. Coverage is three sentences plus a screenshot. Pcap ping 00:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Verifiable independent source here:http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/ linux format magazine april 2009 issue=117 82.29.100.219 (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to AGF it was mentioned in a print issue, but a search on their site returned nothing, and even minor coverage like "hot picks" has a list of the applications covered in the freely-available toc. Pcap ping 10:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at the toc of the issue carefully, and I see no article that could even potentially cover it. Pcap ping 10:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'NOTE -- Off-site canvassing occuring here --Teancum (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: As humans are equal, why shouldn't be OSes equal? Why would you delete DexOS and not Windows? DexOS is one of the few independent OSes that are not related at all with the others. It's free and open and the mostly important, MADE IN ASM. ([Special:Contributions/89.47.179.111]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.96.133.5 (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be assuming that all humans are worth of having articles on Wikipedia. They're not. And although being written in assembly is impressive, that alone does not guarantee notability. I've looked for significant coverage by independent sources and haven't found any. Reach Out to the Truth 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find significant coverage of this software. I haven't see Linux Format coverage, but based on the comments here and the searching I've done it doesn't appear that this software is notable. Reach Out to the Truth 21:55, 2 February 2010 (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.