Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Fuchsia


 * 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 snowball keep. Brandon (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Google Fuchsia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just a supposed new operating system from Google in the early stages of development, without relevant information. Pedrohoneto (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly notable, lots of coverage, code available. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 18:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable product from a notable company, good sources Ahmed (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Clearly notable. Tons of press. -- Zac  Bowling  (user 22:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just putting in my vote here. Reasons as aboves. Fuchsia is no hoax and is no rumor. Yes there are some speculations (such as Google will use it to replace Linux in all its OS'es, etc.,etc.), but Fuchsia is a real and notable project nonetheless. --Ferdi Zebua (username: Lemi4) (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm going with "Keep" here. I was reading about it elsewhere, and came to Wikipedia to find more about it, hoping for more detail than is currently in the article. The only caveat I have is that most of the external coverage I see is in the last week or so, so it's possible that this might be a case of WP:NOTNEWS. But I'd rather err on the side of retention. If it turns out to have just been newsworthy rather than notable in the long run, we can always revisit it for deletion in another six months or so. TJRC (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per coverage in The Register and elsewhere, this is already clearly a substantial Google project with encyclopedic importance.  Brianhe (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep quoting above "lots of coverage, code available", "Notable product from a notable company" Mathiastck (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a confirmably real (source is available) and serious operating system project of a large company. --ilmaisin (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2016 (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.