Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OmniRom (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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OmniRom (operating system)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

delete, sources found appear mostly promotional or connected to subject[], [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ffs, I've only just started the page. Do you expect it to be fully formed and referenced on creation? Alex (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, however that doesn't matter much cause it's just my opinion. I also expect that even if its not referenced a simple search would be enough to show notability but I didn't find that when I looked. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - AFD Nomination created 2 minutes after the article was created. From WP:BEFORE: "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  20:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Covered by The Register, International Business Times, and Android Authority.  Android Authority looks like a more-or-less reliable source.  I think new articles should have references, too, but sources do seem to exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per the source finds by NinjaRobotPirate. A quick Google search with "OmniRom" android turned up the same sources, as well as announcements on quite a few other Android news sites. Although this is a new system, it is already notable and will likely get more so over time. The article itself seems not too promotional and is well-sourced for a new stub. A notable topic and a well-formed article suggest keeping it. --Mark viking (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2013 (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.