Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4690


 * 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, default to keep. May be deleted per WP:V next time if still unsourced by then. Sandstein (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

4690

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to be pretty much spam. jj137 ( Talk ) 03:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom. I think it would be best to delete and start again with one (providing a point-of-sale OS is notable).  ARended Winter 04:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Would almost say this is a CSD candidate, per notability not generally asserted or established. Avruch Talk 06:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This reads like an advert Doc Strange (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOT. Does seem to be advertising - promoting the product.  Tbo 157   (talk)  17:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you read the details, it does not sound like advertising, e.g.: "it's pretty obvious that it is not the most up-to-date on current technologies or software support" or "not extremely advanced". True, there are lots of complimentary statements, but they may well be appropriate. Plus, this really is, I believe, a specialized operating system of some importance. Perhaps some editing will make it more palatable, but don't delete it. Tim Ross ·talk  19:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup it needs to be rewritten and have notability established, but an IBM POS system would probably meet notability requirements. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Fair points. If the article can be rewritten, sourced with reliable sources and the notability can be asserted then I wouldn't object to keeping the article.  Tbo 157   (talk)  23:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup per 132.205.99.122. I don't see major WP:NOT problem, the article seems pretty neturally written. --Brewcrewer (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup There is a lot of good information in there it just needs to be cleaned up. Mikemill (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.