Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruff (operating system)

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. Joyous! | Talk 01:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruff (operating system)

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

No indication of notability. Can't find any secondary sources for it; the only Google result is Ruff's official website. IagoQnsi (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent third-party sources, also fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 16:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not anything on search engine other than the official website. sami ^talk 21:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: Google "Ruff TechCrunch" and ""Ruff GitHub". Fair amount of people contributing codes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.231.14.45 (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of people "contributing codes" has no bearing at all on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines in the article or its references, nor have my searches provided anything better. The only reference which could perhaps be regarded as an independent source is an announcement on TechCrunch saying that Ruff had won a "startup competition" run by TechCrunch. An organisation's own announcement of a winner of its own competition is not much evidence of notability, even if the competition is significant enough, which does not seem to be the case. I am not even sure that it should be regarded as an independent source, since one of the services which TechCrunch provides is platforms for "technology startups [to] launch their products and services ... for prize money and publicity", which amounts to saying that TechCrunch provides facilities for startups to promote themselves. (The quote is from the Wikipedia article TechCrunch, which of course is not a reliable source, but it seems to me to be accurate.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. And we're starting to find that TechCrunch cannot be relied upon as a neutral source as we've had countless problems with references from TechCrunch as being little more that repeats of company marketing and promotion. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are just nine Google hits for Ruff; three of those are on Wikipedia. For notable RTOSs, there are normally hundreds or thousands of hits. —EncMstr (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently this system is created by a Chinese company. If you use Baidu.com, or Sogou.com which are search engines available in China, there are many search results. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.192.153.198 (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2016 (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.