Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyro Desktop (2nd 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. No assertion or evidence of notability. Sources are few and poor quality press releases.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Pyro Desktop
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an old article that's been marked for notability for a long time. Googling for it doesn't reveal very much recent, most of it seems to be an unrelated desktop wallpaper. The original sources don't seem to indicate sufficient notability either. The desktoplinux.com blurb (labeled as eweek) is really just an announcement from the project, and the slashdot post is the same. The only real review is the arstechnica article. It's a fine project, but I'm not sure it meets notability criteria. However I didn't want to prod it without review. Shadowjams (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Update - I just noticed there was a previous nomination. However, that was almost a year ago and the result was no consensus, so I don't think there's harm in renomination now. Shadowjams (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment At this point I accept a review and reevaluation of the sources is needed. Perhaps instead of deletion the content can be merged with the developer's bio article? riffic (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's two developers listed and only Toshok has a bluelinked page. There should be a mention of this project in his bio of course. I'm not sure "merge" is the right term though. His bio should cover this regardless, but the project-specific detail wouldn't fit into a bio. There's also not a lot in the Pyro article to merge. Frankly it reads a bit like a release announcement. Shadowjams (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete All I can find is three sources (all from 2007), that are already in the article - Desktop Linux, arstechnica and what appears to be the Polish version of PC World. Looking at the dates and structure of the first and third, my cynical side suggests they have been recycled from the same press release. I'm inclined to suggest such sparse coverage stretches WP:GNG to breaking point. As for a merge, I have serious concerns about the Chris Toshok article. The article is an unsourced WP:BLP. The subject himself appears to be of marginal notability. In my opinion the only thing saving that article from an abrupt trip to AfD itself is not mentioned in the article .  Pit-yacker (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Web operating system. Although the references are convincing that it is worth of mention, the project itself seems to be dead and indeed all the sources report the same GUADEC presentation. Though right now the proposed target page is a mess, the concept of operating system as a bootable browser was and still is fairly popular, and it even has notable implementations: Google Chrome OS and webOS. So the target can be converted to the article, dedicated to the concept and verifiable attempts at implementation, thus serving a background for both notable implementations. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: see similar discussion about OS.js article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of notability and reliable sources. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2012 (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.