Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oniro OS


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I'm closing this as Delete. If an editor wants to work on this article, I'm willing to Restore it to Draft space or the helpful admins at WP:REFUND can do that. But because this AFD has been closed as Delete, any draft has to be submitted and approved by WP:AFC or CSD G4 could apply should the draft be moved back, unaltered, to the main space. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Oniro OS

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article fails WP:GNG and more specifically WP:PRODUCT. Sources in the article that mention the article's subject (many don't, per Talk:Oniro OS) and what I could find online consist solely of press releases, primary sources, or churnalism. Aoidh (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, Internet,  and Software. Aoidh (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, mostly primary sources and promotional, press-release-adjacent stuff. A few of the sources appear to have been added after the assessement table like or  but appear to parrot the same press release interview line. (Funnily I somehow got alerted for this as the notification bot believed I was the primary author of the page, since all previous revisions were deleted after I marked them for copyvio)  Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 04:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest this goes into the draft. Poppodoms (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * in due respect. Poppodoms (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftspace is a namespace where articles are held in the short term while they are being improved so that they can be moved to mainspace. Articles are not moved to draftspace in lieu of deletion on the off-chance that they may one day become notable. Sometimes the lack of notability is an edge case such as a brand new product or event that is days old for example, where reliable sources haven't quite had time to manifest, or where notability is almost-but-not-quite there. This does not appear to be a situation where the article would benefit from draftification. - Aoidh (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the decision being made. Poppodoms (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If no draftspace, it should be kept alive, in line with previous comment on allowing space to increase independent third party sources. Poppodoms (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As a note, Poppodoms, this article's creator, copy-pasted the article into Draft:Oniro OS, creating attribution issues for that draft if this article is deleted. - Aoidh (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have redirected, which is allowed under WP:NOTCSD point 16. If the discussion ends in delete a refund can still be requested to either draftspace or userspace which will not have any attribution issues. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:154D:8DE5:E43F:9FAC (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - as far as I can tell, all extant sourcing is either primary or glorified press releases. ― novov (t   c)  07:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify - Firstly from the completely pragmatic perspective that the page creator clearly intends to re-create the page in draft if it is deleted. That is not a draftify reason though. However I think there is a case for draftification. I'll start with the reasons this is not a keep for me. The article has 17 sources but many are general and not about the subject. Looking at those about the subject, the three up front in the first paragraph of the lead are all just the product announcement. There is one source that has good information about the OS that is later (Marek, 2024), but this is from the Eclipse Foundation and not independent. The primary sourcing has also been noted above. So there is no sourcing here that demonstrates notability.
 * So it probably should be deleted, but I am a touch wary. The Eclipse Foundation is notable. This is a major project of the foundation, and although it is niche, I am not certain that no secondary sources exist. It is written about in secondary sources, e.g. but that source, for instance, could be attacked for not being independent. There is mention of the Oniro working group in this book  but the mention is passing. It is also mentioned in this book . None of this adds up to notability, but it could be WP:TOOSOON or it could even be that it is notable but unproven. The page creator is a new editor who created the article in good faith and wishes to continue working on it. As they become more experienced with our notability guidelines, they will come to understand what is required to demonstrate notability, and they are well placed and willing to work on this in draft. There is ceratinly the possibility that they will be able to demonstrate notability in the future. Furthermore, allowing the page to exist in draft and encouraging the editor to continue working on it there could encourage the development of a potentially very good editor. WP:TOOSOON allows that draftification may be the most appropriate and I do not see a downside to that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: I can only find press releases from Huawei, not even really about this OS. What's used now for sourcing isn't enough, Github repositories, press releases, blogs and Bing search results (?). Just not enough for notability due to lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Outside of press releases from the developers there really isn't much to go on here. You'd think an OS from Huawei and the Eclipse Foundation would have some reliable, secondary coverage but strangely it doesn't. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk)  17:31, 19 March 2024 (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.