Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EyeOS


 * 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. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

EyeOS

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Page is written like an advertisement. Sure it might have the references, this does not account on why the article is written like an advert, though. Weak references. Lacking any significance factor. Message from XENU u, t  02:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article is slightly NPOV, too. Message from XENU u, t  02:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article was G11 deleted before. Message from XENU u, t  02:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. It's notable, and style issues aren't grounds for deletion at AfD. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- Eastmain (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. I agree with Eastmain; it meets the notability requirements. Note that Message from Xenu has also nominated the archived talk for this article for deletion. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Eastmain.Mission Fleg (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Under what criteria does it qualify as notable? It seems to have a complete lack of third party independent sourcing. -- neon white talk 16:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't cited in the article, but it's gotten a mention in PC Mag and was briefly reviewed in Infoworld. No arguments that the citations are weak, but there are at least 3 external sources. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's still a very weak case. It's still lacking in the 'Significant coverage' part. -- neon white talk 15:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. There's an article in linux.com (burried in the all the references in the article). . Softpedia does not inspire me much confidence in their editorial policy — you can find a review for pretty much anything there. Quite often the Softpedia reviews also lack any critical thinking, and just regurgitate soundbites from the software authors. VG &#x260E; 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so one creditable reference? Great. Message from XENU u, t  17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as reference you can see http://mags.acm.org/communications/200807/?pg=12 . -- 192.223.140.62 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why have a number of your edits been vandalism? See: . The fact you're participating in this article without vandalizing it leads me to think your not NPOV. Message from XENU</b><sup style="color:gold;"> u, t  14:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an IP address, not an account. The person from ACM who originally signed his email address here isn't necessarily the same one whose edits have been reverted as vandalism. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Its notable, its encyclopedic, & the citations are good. Sentriclecub (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2008 (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.