Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syllable Desktop

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 no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus, and at least a plausible assertion that paywalled or otherwise questionable sources may prove to yield notability upon further investigation. Note, per WP:BLOG, that there are instances in which a blog written by experts in the field can be used as a source. BD2412 T 06:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syllable Desktop[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject of the article is not notable; it is a long-defunct minor hobbyist OS of no particular import and with no particularly large user base, if it even has one. Foonblace (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources in the article aside, there seems to be some coverage on golem.de, arstechnica.com or root.cz (the last one being somewhat more than usual short news: [1]). I will look for other sources and try to use them in the article, but my wiki-time is too limited these days. Pavlor (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, however the source linked to is from 2006 and the project has been defunct for years - I don't believe adding additional sources would be enough to establish general notability. Foonblace (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I don´t understand. Adding additional sources is the very way to prove notability of the article subject. It doesn´t matter if these sources are older as soon as these are reliable (well, "Wikipedia-reliable"): Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. (per WP:NOTTEMPORARY) Pavlor (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This coverage is not really "significant" though - it's a single article. A single article on a niche publication does not make something notable. I'm not saying that the notability is temporary, I'm saying that it never truly existed in the first place. Foonblace (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think any entry on abandoned or discontinued operating systems should be removed. They are now abandoned, nonetheless each one of them has represented a step in the general history of software development. They were ~~revised~~ reviewed and commented on, and for some time they were even seen as viable. 151.76.10.64 (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't stand to reason that any OS that has ever existed has "represented a step in the general history of software development" if it did not leave a lasting legacy. In any event, "this existed once" does not establish notability. In this particular case, it left no lasting legacy, had no significant coverage and had no apparent notable user base. It's simply not notable by any definition except an extremely contorted one. Foonblace (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case (and with AtheOS too) this page has been here for years and to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever disputed its notability, not even when it was just a stub to work on. There were articles devoted to SyllableOS online, so it was notable, and wikipedia documented it. Now it seems to me the main point in deleting the page would be "SyllableOS is an old project, largely unsuccessful, and nobody uses it today". I am leaning to keep too. 151.76.10.64 (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That someone made an article about it and never pointed out its lack of notability before does not mean it is notable. Again, it's not that it's not notable now, it's that it was *never* notable by Wikipedia's standards. Foonblace (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources I found so far: quite long and detailed article about Syllable on pro-linux.de [2] (contains several shorter articles/news about AtheOS/Slyllable, but I´m not sure this webpage is really RS - it claims to have editorial staff, but may be a better blog), Linux Format 105 (May 2008; one article devoted to several alternative OSs, behind pay-wall, so can´t say, how much broad coverage of Syllable), Linux Format 78 (April 2006; 4 pages about Syllable, but author is also a Syllable contributor, so not entirely independent coverage). There may be more of this kind (like OSNews in the article and root.cz mentioned above), I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Unconvincing delete rationale, nom failed to improve argument in following discussion. I have no opinion on whether the topic is notable. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat weak keep as there are some sources with broad enough coverage of the article subject but their reliability or independence may be questionable. Still enough - in my POV - sources to establish notability. Pavlor (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I ask myself a question as I am doing a WP:BEFORE search. Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives more than routine coverage but is sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable and independent is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives different coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source. The subject of this article fails WP:N in those regards. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:47, 15 January 2021 (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.