Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SystemDOS

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. Tawker (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SystemDOS[edit]

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

Non-notable software. As the article itself notes, it was released just three days ago. No applicable coverage found by Google, and the word "systemdos" doesn't even occur in any of the three sources cited in the article—even if the OS it refers to is what they're about, they aren't sources for verification of the name. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the deletion. While not mentioning it explicitly, Poettering was clearly stating that they are creating an OS. I added a partial quote.

The whole argument for deletion seems to be that the name isn't cited. The fact that systemd is notable is clear. This article is just discussing the operating system that Poettering has announced. See the article itself for the construction of the name. -- Ben Bucksch (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of systemd isn't at issue here, the notability of SystemDOS is. The whole argument for deletion is that it seems not to be notable; the part about whether the word "SystemDOS" appears in the articles cited was just part of that. In any event, the sources you cited aren't independent sources that can be used to support notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry for being rough, but the article pretty much seems to be someone's pipe dream. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, this is pretty niche and doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, so it probably ought to go. Ducknish (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I exported it to v:SystemDOS. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't get it. Why? That's simply misleading, as no references even use "SystemDOS" as a term. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see the references don't even imply anything Dos-like related. Only one mentioned an OS, but it didn't even say which. I moved it out of Wikipedia, to another project where verifiability is used rather than notability. I might scratch it there since that is hard to use for a resource about dos emulation, and consider starting a resource about dos emulation that includes Dosbox. I will tag it there, for a chance for the editor to fix the problem, if not, it will automatically be in line for deletion. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 20:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the clarification. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but the references wouldn't imply anything DOS-like because even the article doesn't imply such a thing. It isn't System + DOS, it's SystemD + OS. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and I didn't bother to go into that. It isn't supposed to be associated with DOS, MS-DOS, DOS emulation or whatever similar. Of course, that still doesn't change anything about references containing nothing about "SystemDOS". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:17, 13 April 2014 (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.