Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PostmarketOS


 * 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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

PostmarketOS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

At first glance, the topic has several references; however, as raised at Template:Did you know nominations/postmarketOS, it appears that most of these are either not independent, of questionable reliability, or are passing mentions. A search couldn't really find much other significant coverage that may have been missed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Userfy or Delete (disclosure: I received a neutral notification at my Talk page as a likely interested party as I'd conducted the DYK review of this article) This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Sourcing in the article is extremely limited and largely not WP:INDEPENDENT. This may be due to the fact the OS has yet to launch and, with a launch date imminent, the breadth and depth of coverage may soon expand. Userfying the content, and deleting the article from mainspace, would allow the author to expand it - when additional sources are available - and then resubmit it to DYK without falling afoul of the five-day newness limit. My second choice is full delete. Chetsford (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The project has received a very large amount of coverage and interest from media sources (disproportionately larger than any comparable software project) as cited in the article itself. --RaviC (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: I did some searches and found several reliable-looking full-length articles about postmarketOS. I think WP:GNG is established by these: xda-developers.com fossbytes.com 1, fossbytes.com 2, liliputing.com, hackaday.com, notebookcheck.net. And articles with significant mentions: datamation.com (4 paragraphs), linuxgizmos.com 1 (3 paragraphs), linuxgizmos.com 2 (3 paragraphs). Has anyone looked into these in detail and deemed them unreliable? -- intgr [talk] 12:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are linuxgizmos.com, xda-developers.com, etc. WP:RS? Chetsford (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well generally in AfD discussions, 2-3 whole news articles about a subject is considered sufficient for WP:GNG, so the question is, are most of these sources unreliable?
 * While these sites aren't the pinnacle of WP:RS, linuxgizmos.com has an editorial team and xda-developers was at one point hiring an editor, so not on the level of some personal blog either. -- intgr [talk] 14:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well InfoWars has an editorial team, so that fact doesn't really establish linuxgizmos.com as a RS in my mind. When I check to see if linuxgizmos.com or xda-developers.com or plasma-mobile.org or wiki.debia.org have been sourced to outlets that are, themselves, unambiguously RS, I turn up nothing. Chetsford (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the editorial team because WP:RS talks about "editorial control" and having an editorial team suggests that; I also said that in the context that it makes them better than personal blogs. So bringing up InfoWars comes off as a straw man. Point is, these are all small-ish online news websites and on the "RS spectrum" they fall in the middle, they're not "clearly unreliable". I also don't see why you're concentrating on these ones out of all the ones I listed. I never mentioned plasma-mobile.org or wiki.debian.org, which you bring up now, I agree those aren't reliable sources. -- intgr [talk] 19:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2018 (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.