Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RetroBSD


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

RetroBSD

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unreferenced (save for one wikilink) article about a hobby project. Couldn't find any news or book hits, and while there are many web hits, they are all self-published or in blogs. Doesn't seem to be anything in reliable sources out there. Might be some more things in the future if TechCrunch get hold of it it, but for now it just doesn't seem notable. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * RetroBSD is a serious project. Yes, it started out as a hobby project, but is now so much more.  It is at least as worthy of inclusion as the many other "hobby" operating systems that are in Wikipedia. Majenko (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - can't find any references on this, and WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for an article. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it isn't notable enough for its own page, can you suggest a page that it could be included in? Majenko (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to the lack of any sources on it, nowhere. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles should be written from reliable sources first. I admit it's not at all obvious to newcomers, which is why we see so much hostility on AfDs, but the procedure is that you should start with the sources, then write the article around it. User:Uncle G/On sources and content is a good essay to read on this subject - note particularly that it says "Articles that cite sources are rarely even nominated for deletion, let alone deleted." If the article has no references at all, and we cannot find any suitable ones, then as Lukeno94 says, it cannot exist in any form on Wikipedia. Even if it were copied into another article, because it cannot be reliably sourced, another editor may challenge what is there and remove it. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Since you put it like that I can't really argue ;) So, it can be quite hard for a minor, little known topic to make it into Wikipedia, where it would be of most benefit.  (Not necesarily this topic, but others, where sources may not be available online)Majenko (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's frustrating (for the same reason my programming project and my band aren't notable enough for WP and would be sent to AfD if not speedy deleted in the same manner). The basic idea is that it's supposed to be consistently fair or unfair (depending on your POV) for all articles. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * DeleteThis looks like an interesting OS and it's impressive squeezing a BSD onto a PIC32. Unfortunately, while there are a couple of primary sources out there, I could find no secondary or independent sources that the article could be based upon. As this is a new system still under development, this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON; there hasn't been time for the OS to grow to the point that independent reviews or news articles have been written. When those independent sources are forthcoming, recreating the article is a reasonable action. Mark viking (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Majenko, go and read at the OSDev wiki, and learn the salutary lesson of operating system development projects on the WWW and how ephemeral they are.  Wikipedia is for the ones that get independently documented and known.  Most don't escape their creators and get known at all.  FreeBSD has several entire books about its development and operation, in contrast.  And it's not about size, or whether something is "minor".  Encyclopaedias can have articles on asteroids, species of beetle, and villages.  It's about whether something is a firmly, independently, and properly documented-in-depth part of the general corpus of human knowledge.  And that means independent people with identifiable good reputations for fact checking and accuracy writing things up and publishing them outwith Wikipedia first.  And yes, human knowledge is lumpy, bumpy, and unfair.  Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete -- software project that hasn't received external reviews or news yet. too soon, as Mark said. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:04, 20 December 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.