Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oos


 * 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. Kubigula (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oos

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Looks like vanispamcruftisement. No third party sources. No claim of notability. The article is just a list of features and to-do's. Previosly prodded. De-prodded without substantive change or comment. -- Ben 21:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep If that's WP:VSCA I'd like to see more cruft articles that well written.  -Hansonc 21:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You know... you are probably right. It probably doesn't qualify as WP:VSCA. It reads like ad to me. Since you didn't comment on the lack of sources and lack of notability, does that mean that you agree that they aren't there and that the article's subject doesn't meet WP:N? -- Ben 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't feel WP:N is a good enough reason to delete 99% of the time. Why not fix the article rather than destroy it if you're not happy with WP:NPV which is what you should be arguing if you're calling it an advertisement. - Hansonc 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Problem is that it doesn't have much exposure, so going on WP:N and WP:WEB, I'd have to say no.  Not every software project is notable, sorry. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Qst  18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete nn, advertisement, probably coi as creators only edits have been to this page and a relating image: Special:Contributions/Habam2004. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per OSborn. – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not the kind of company that has the notablity to be on Wikipedia. Also looks like an ad.  Captain   panda  03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Couldn't find any third party reliable sources discussing it, so it does not (yet, at least) appear notable enough. Hal peridol 03:43, 7 November 2007 (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.