Talk:Open AT OS

User Talk
Its hard to find any information on this OS, wikipedia is one of the few places you can go to from google to see this- This is the most information I have found on open AT to date at one location.

I am not a wiki-writer, but it seems just because a little clean up is needed we should not dump this whole page, it has some great data. Yeah and you know, reading this as an engineer it in no way sounds like an advert, sorry but I pulled the tags- can someone explain why they put them there?

To me just saying wavecom every now and then is not that bad- its like saying Microsoft windows

I just can NOT see how someone thought this was not noteworthy or an ad.

64.207.236.42 (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

GregJackP- Could you please take the time to COMMUNICATE why you feel this page needs to be deleted- like I said, to me- just as a normal reader it sounds neutral enough... and I dont get the feeling that its a ad in anyway.

I cant find any guidelines that this article meets other than needing a general cleanup... its not like it says BUY THIS NOW 9.95!!!

So lets be civil about this, please take some time and help me- reverting edits without any talk is just annoying, at least I am taking the time to do this.

64.207.236.42 (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How does this page meet this?
I dont get how this page can be set under this definition.

"G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

64.207.236.42 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I restored a CSD-G11 tag that was repeatedly removed without an edit summary to show why it was removed. A number of editors have looked at this article and have concluded, as do I, that it exists primarily to promote a Wavecom product. In addition to my action, JzG commented that it was not notable/spammy; an IP (76.117.247.55) commented that it was an ad; there are no independent, verifiable, reliable sources listed as references; all of the links pretty much lead to the vendor. GNews shows primarily press releases - doesn't appear to have any reviews. It's an ad. (GregJackP (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Its an OS there are no reviews to be had because its not a product designed for end users, but from a CompSci or Developer standpoint this page is priceless- it has a lot of data in one nice little area. Look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELinks there are not many links off to other groups, just one group mention- because a few people have erroneously assumed that this should have a review in pcworld then dropped it does not make it an AD

Your only justification is that there are not more sources, that does not make it an advertisement- and your notion that "that it exists primarily to promote a Wavecom product" makes no sense- you may as well call this page an AD on those same grounds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Pro_Logic

72.192.83.115 (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Also you claim " A number of editors have looked at this article and have concluded" AND "tag that was repeatedly removed" I count one user adding the tag, and I removed it and created a talk page- you added it back on and still have provided no rational that stands up to any logic as to why- other than the fact (my guess) that you assume that an IP user was just making abusive edits. Hopefully someone else can come along and resolve this- and I hope they work in the field of embedded electronics and see the value of this article. - I highly disagree that this is an advertisement, so as long as you keep the CSD tag on this page I will dispute it. If its something someone can edit and fix there is no reason to trash this page. This page clearly does not qualify "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" therefore not meeting the guidelines for CSD G11

"Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

On those grounds I am going to retag this article with the advert tag and pull the CSD tag- we can agree on that right? Because this is not blatant advertising, I cant even see it that way- but since you claim it needs a few more sources I will see if I can find some- other than that it does not need a vast re-write.

64.207.236.42 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay I cleaned up some of the article, got rid of much of the name dropping done by the first writer on the manufacturer- and changed the wording in a couple of areas that may have seemed ad'ish. please use this talk page before you go and throw a CSD on this page- lets clean it up, not destroy it because were too lazy to spend 5 seconds editing.

I will leave the AD tag on until someone decides to pull it down- hopefully now it seems much less like an AD, I never thought it did in the first place, but regardless I have made some edits that should clean up any confusion that could lead someone to think that this is an advertisement. This is an embedded OS, not windows- dont expect to find a ton of people talking about it other than engineers like me.

64.207.236.42 (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and have nominated the article for a full AfD discussion. GregJackP (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine we need a third party to look into this- it will just be a shame if this data gets thrown in the garbage basket of cyberspace. 64.207.236.42 (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD List Discussion
For anyone interested, hopefully this will survive if the article survives as an example why this page is notable, not an ad, and has plenty of sources to justify its own existence- IMHO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_AT_OS

72.192.83.115 (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)