Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cairo (operating system)


 * 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 keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cairo (operating system)

 * — (View AfD)

possibly a hoax. unverifed since august. a search of cairo in microsoft site returns nothing about this. KaiFei 08:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've added 3 links to reliable sources. I can remember gossips it back in nineties even though I was a kid:) As for lack of information on MS website, don't forget - it was a long ago and it's the part of history Bill would like to forget. Max S em 09:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not a hoax. This was a big deal in the desktop software industry in the early 90's (I was a developer at a major software corp. at the time.) Thanks for the references, MaxSem! FreplySpang 09:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable and verifiable. Tarinth 10:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep So well known that this AFD almost seems like a hoax. If only KaiFei had searched for "Cairo operating system" at microsoft.com. AlistairMcMillan 10:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced now, notable & verified. SkierRMH 11:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per excellent post-sourcing. Bubba hotep 11:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep definitely notable. Good job sourcing. ← A NAS  Talk? 11:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, verifiable, sourced, notable software in the past. Terence Ong 14:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it's verified, sourced, and notable, and most certainly not a hoax. Good work finding sources.-- danntm T C 16:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per all above; not a hoax, easily referenced from WP:RS, does not violate WP:V. -- Kinu t /c  19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly not a hoax. Maxamegalon2000 20:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, excellent post-sourcing, and vertifiable. Daniel5127 &lt;Talk&gt; 05:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as sourcing makes it clear this isn't a hoax. Jjacobsmeyer 17:48, 9 January 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.