Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile Internet Experience

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 redirect to HP Mini 1000. History will be left intact due to the interest in merging; whether and what to merge can be decided in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Internet Experience[edit]

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

Non-notable Linux distribution for a single laptop ~~that doesn't even have an article.~~ ViperSnake151 Talk 15:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:GNG not met. Yworo (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Notable: source 1 source 2 source 3. These were found by a 30 second google search. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These articles only make passing references to the OS as a component of HP Mini 1000. It does not suggest any independent notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OS is in the title of all three articles and receives enough coverage in each to signify notability... in my opinion. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 05:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But still; its a Linux distribution only shipped on one device. Make an article on the HP Mini 1000 itself and then you can talk about it all you want. ViperSnake151 Talk 05:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are not based on policy. It doesn't matter that it was only shipped on one device, it only matters if it is covered in reliable sources, which it is. It also doesn't matter if other stuff exists (or in this case doesn't exist). The OS's notability is independent of the device it runs on. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 06:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I assume you haven't seen HP Mini 1000 Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 06:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks notoriety, there is a specific guideline in which this article fails to meet WP:Software, it does not meet its criteria, lacking in-depth coverage from a reliable source from its particular field (oses), it is not subject of social integration, it is not widely reported by reviews, manuals, etc, it is not a historical piece of software. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea why I'm lobbying so hard to keep this article... but the fact is WP:NSOFT is an essay and WP:GNG trumps it. This OS has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I don't understand why this doesn't satisfy WP:N. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It only received a burst of coverage because it was a component of that laptop. So obviously any reviews of it are going to mention it. That doesn't mean its an independently notable product. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to HP Mini 1000 then. Note that the article on the machine does not use the grandiose name with all capital letters, and neither article links to the other. Not sure the redirect would be that useful to leave behind, but history perhaps. Combining the two would make a much better case for being notable. For that matter, merging all these individual "spec-sheet" articles into HP Mini to describe the product line through history would be best in my opinion. Right now the articles use present and future tense (sometimes past tense) without much mention of dates. These products change so fast that each one rarely meets notability requirements by itself. One can always go to the vendors' web sites to find more up-to-date specifications. Anything from 2008 is probably obsolete and unlikely to become more notable the longer we wait. But a narrative of how the product line evolved with appropriate wikilinks and citations to reliable verifiable sources is more "timeless" and thus more encyclopedic. W Nowicki (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to HP Mini 1000. This seems like a subject that would be on-topic for the HP Mini 1000 article, and it doesn't have notability independent of that device. It gets Google hits, but they're not significant coverage of the operating system itself; it's always discussed as a component of the device. Much like we wouldn't create an independent article on a single-use tamper-resistant screw that was mentioned along with a gadget, we shouldn't create articles on single-use operating systems that are tied to their host device. If it ever becomes independently notable, then it can get its own article. Deletion seems a bit extreme, but that's an acceptable fallback. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2013 (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.