Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meltemi (operating system) (3rd nomination)


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 03:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Meltemi (operating system)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In the previous deletion discussion the consensus was Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. This still applies. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't have the ability to look at the previous version of this article but based on what I see in this one, and the comments from the last AfD discussion, it would seem the same issues exist. And for the record I concur with the consensus from that discussion. This would seem to be a potential CSD G-4 candidate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read CSD G4 again. Anyone can tell that this is not a repost: it's been edited numerous times since it was created, including multiple non-minor edits.  Even if it were originally a repost (which it isn't; it's a completely new article), it's been edited enough times that it definitely wouldn't be a repost anymore.  Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Please stop the disallowed practice of WP:LAWYERING. G4 would apply since the reason for the deletion in the previous AfD (lack of notability) still applies. And additionally the previous AfD settled that A7 would definitely apply. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the whole point of G4 is, and always has been, to get rid of content that's already been deleted at AFD. Anyone can tell that this content was never before at AFD.  Nyttend (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually G-4 applies even if there has been editing, if the same problems identified in the original AfD are still present. G-4 is only disallowed if the new editing/version has corrected those issues. As far as I can see that is not the case here. See WP:CSDX. -Ad Orientem (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Kindly read the actual criterion, which "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". This criterion is for reposts, and the essay has it wrong.  Nyttend (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If the same problem that lead to the first deletion still exists, then common sense would suggest that the article is not substantially different. Your defense appears to be relying heavily on legalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unencyclopedic article based on rumor and hearsay — in major venues such as The Register, but still. Blogs and news websites citing each other and what they overheard/interpret about a product that may at some point have been in development simply cannot pass for reliable reporting, nor in-depth coverage of a topic. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, required by WP:GNG; however, Wikipedia policy in WP:CRYSTAL is exceptionally clear: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Agyle (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2014 (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.