Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony OS (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Symphony OS
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject matter of article is an abandoned (last mentioned release over twelve years ago) hobbyist OS with minimal market share (historical or present) or impact, and therefore does not meet general notability guidelines. Foonblace (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  02:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  02:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - With older articles I lean inclusionist, especially when the articles had clear keep outcomes in former AfDds. There was extensive coverage of Symphony OS at the time. Mezzo's design principles (cf. http://web.archive.org/web/20050610031031/http://www.symphonyos.com/uilaws.html by Jason Spisak, 2004) were an influence on other desktops, including KDE. We should probably merge the Mezzo article into this article. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - I took a look through the last AfD, which was in 2005, and the keep consensus was based on questionable arguments like "it exists so deserves a page". The one source that appears to show any sort of notability is the Linux.com review (the archived version of which can be found here. Aside from Linux.com, there's no reviews or news about Symphony other than changelog notes; the article's subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Significant coverage in third-party sources should be shown, not just alluded to "having existed"...where is the notability coming from? Nowhere that I can find. - Aoidh (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, coverage is insufficient to retain an article. The source cited by Charles Stewart above is not independent, as it's from the OS's own website. Other than that, there's no evidence of the asserted coverage. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2021 (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.