Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QubeOS


 * 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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

QubeOS

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Only one source, which does not establish notability. No further sources found. Also, the external links seem to point to a spam site and a completely unrelated project. Keφr (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: there are several sources in Italian: QubeOS, sistema operativo online che parla Italiano, Un'applicazione nel Mac App Store conferma l'esistenza di Google Drive. I don't know Italian, thus I can't assert the notability based on these sources, but this seems to be above the normal amount of mention such projects receive. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the Google translations, these appear to be passing mentions at best. --Kvng (talk)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep apparently it's an Italian thing. Found one reliable independent ref and few others less reliable, , . --Kvng (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am afraid the sources you listed might not be reliable at all, and I am not even sure whether they discuss anything related to the original subject of the article. Jumping from a DOS-based GUI to a so-called "cloud computing" environment is a pretty huge leap. The only source which establishes the link between those two is the OSnews article, and I really doubt the reliability of that site. Isn't OSnews a site where anyone can submit content, which later just gets "approved" by some kind of editing staff? Also, notice that some of the websites you listed link to a website with the domain name "qube-os.com" and not "qubeos.com". Only the former seems to be registered by Italians. So I think that any content we might write based on all these sources would be misinformation. Keφr (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OSNews is generally considered reliable source in prior AfDs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It looks like qubeos.com didn't always look like the output of SCIgen. Still, that Italian thing seems to be a completely different project. There is also this: . But I believe it is mostly shallow coverage, not allowing to write anything about any technical details of this desktop environment. And the project is dead now, so it is very unlikely that such sources will appear in the future. It had its two minutes of fame, and nothing beyond that. Keφr (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact my "weak keep" was supposed to mean "keep if there is enough information for an article". For now I don't see anything that could be used to produce encyclopedic content. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In fairness, Dmitrij, it should be noted that you write for OSNews, so you are not necessarily unbiased! Looking at the OSNews article, most of the references are either from OSNews itself, or minor coverage - so I might look at that article and sourcing in a bit more detail, to see how notable it is, or how reliable it is (I can't see any discussion about this at the notability notice board)!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Just barely, but meeting WP:GNG per:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 00:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, we already found these. I claim that this is not enough material to write anything encyclopædic, and User:Czarkoff seems to agree. I state that this means the article should be deleted. We are talking about three sentences anyway; if sensible sources were to be found, it would not be any harder to recreate the article. Still, I welcome further input. The worst outcome would be "no consensus". Keφr (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm entitled to my own !vote, which is based upon notability guidelines. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would just like to note, that per WP:GNG "[m]ultiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", and in this case both items are by the same person and are published by the same organization, with the only difference that one of them, being an interview, is not genuinely independent. — — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm entitled to my own !vote, which is based upon notability guidelines. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would just like to note, that per WP:GNG "[m]ultiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", and in this case both items are by the same person and are published by the same organization, with the only difference that one of them, being an interview, is not genuinely independent. — — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. We have two topics for the possible articles under "QubeOS" name:
 * DOS shell has some primary sources, two short OSNews articles on it and (arguably) some historical significance. In my opinion the DOS shell is worth mention, though we evidently hit the verifiability bottleneck here: nearly no content can be written without original research, and there is no hope to see some new references.
 * In-browser OS has only a bunch of blog posts on it (those links I posted and "few others less reliable" by Kvng). Overall it doesn't seem to be worth mention due to the lack of long-term notability: the sources are substandard, and all belong to category "look at this strange beast, did you know it ever existed?", which I would take for implication of lack of notability.
 * Anyway, I strongly oppose a single article on both of these quite distinct topics. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note for closing admin: in case if closure is not followed by deletion, please specify the topic of the article that was kept. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The coverage in the sources does not seem to me to be sufficient to demonstrate the notability of this product. The first source is mainly an interview (and so does not meet the 'independence' criteria), the second is minor coverage (and in software terms, pretty much a standard announcement!). I see nothing to show that this product meets the notability criteria  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I found this Taiwan ref from 2001 too, if that's any help. -- Trevj (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a rough and inaccurate summary of interview by OSNews. At least I never saw another mention of QubeOS (desktop shell) running on Linux. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case... Merge to FreeDOS, per WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG and the few sources that have been identified. -- Trevj (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To merge it to FreeDOS, there should be some bi-directional connection between these two. While QubeOS's home page explicitly states "for FreeDOS", it seems to miss from FreeDOS repository. In fact this connection existed via Doscore distribution of FreeDOS, but this distribution itself appears to not be mentioned in reliable sources at all. In effect, this now discontinued project struggled with lack of mention throughout its life. I started History of graphical user interfaces for DOS userspace draft. Probably I could cope with other individually non-notable DOS GUIs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It is also a stub that links to another recently deleted Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete on notability grounds. A check of the linked SourceForge page indicates that the project is inactive; download stats from SourceForge indicate that it has been downloaded a relatively low 350 times in 2012.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete but retain list-item at Qube (disambiguation). -- →gab  24 dot  grab← 15:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the purpose of that? Disambiguation pages are by their very nature a list of links to other articles - if there is no article, there should be no link on a disambiguation page.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, per WP:DABENTRY: An entry with no links at all is useless for further navigation. -- Trevj (talk) 08:47, 7 August 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.