Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of operating systems for children


 * 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 delete. Consensus is that this is not an appropriate list. Davewild (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of operating systems for children

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list is crafted based on a set of arbitrary criteria with no citations on what should qualify as an operating system for children, thus failing to meet WP:LISTN L Faraone  00:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete invented info/original research/unreferenced/no notability and possibly promo - there is no main article about operating systems for children. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is precedent for lists of software/products, but the qualification for them is almost always that they pass notability GNG enough to merit an article and/or that they've received enough coverage to at least warrant being mentioned on the list. This specific list seems to set its own rules for inclusion, one of which is that it is "actively maintained & supported." This has never been something that would disqualify something from a list on Wikipedia and it's quite common for lists to include software that is no longer maintained or supported. That aside, we have to look at whether or not there's really anything here that would warrant a list. Offhand I'm not seeing anything and the qualifications for inclusion seem to be fairly loose, given that Leapster is on the list. I suppose that since it does have an OS and it's aimed towards children it could technically belong on the list, but I don't know that it's really an OS in the same way that some of the others (like Edubuntu) are OS systems. This gives off the impression that the only two real qualifications for the list is that the product has to be aimed at children and that it has to be able to run electronically. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: If other articles like this exist, then they're bad ideas, too. The title promises a "comparison" -- by what criterion? There are loads of assumptions in any "comparison." For example, I might want to know about the load time of each, or the nation of origin, or how many left handed brunettes worked on each. There is an include/exclude criterion that is arbitrary, as @Tokyogirl79 points out, but there are even more silent criteria in the points of comparison. This matters because the most vital silence is "comparison to determine which is best" is implied. The usefulness of this article would be as a consumer guide, and we're not in any position to be that. If it doesn't go to the consumer guide form, it becomes undigested information in a table. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't think this is a good idea for an article, but I did locate two sources: this article from PC World and this article from Network World. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2015 (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.