Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ToriOS


 * 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. Michig (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

ToriOS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced article about an operating system. The only possibly reliable source that I could find was this, which is insufficient for establishing notability per WP:GNG. - MrX 13:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: ToriOS

This page is still under development, and so do ToriOS. We will update and put more resources in this article time by time. We will follow and use the rules in Wikipedia. Thank you. - Nuxntux 08:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Re1: ToriOS

A few relevant sources has been added to support this article, hoped this article will not be deleted or erased. Thank you. - Nuxntux 08:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * #1/3/12 are primary sources and doesn't count towards notability. #4/5/6/8/9/11 does not even mention ToriOS. #7/10 are just passing mentions, not withstanding #10 is a forum post and is typically not considered reliable. #2 is not even related to computing, just looks like a desperate attempt of a cite to "support" the etymology. You know what could be a reliable source? This might be (although I couldn't read the language, let's assume that it is not a press release or a run-of-the-mill blog post and is reliable for now) but we are gonna need multiple to keep this. Tentative delete  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sorry, but Wikipedia has inclusion criteria.  It looks like it's too soon for this project to get an article on Wikipedia.  Once it has significant coverage in reliable sources, the article can be recreated.  As it stands, this just isn't there yet.  I don't see anything useful in a Google search, and for a Linux distribution, one would expect that to be a major source of information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Re2: ToriOS

Ahh, maybe you're right. We are too new to release an article in Wikipedia for this project. We or someone else probably will re-create this article back, as soon it's get a little bit popular and useful. I gonna take that advice, and ya. I will not gonna stop you to delete this article, since we support FOSS and the philosophy. Thanks for spending your precious time to make Wikipedia a place for an accurate and rich sources to use and learn. Have a good day! :) - Nuxntux 23:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually your page isn't that much worse than Bodhi Linux, but four years with a logo is better than "planned". Copy the text to a subpage of your user page for a better start in 2017. AFAIK enwiki has no "undelete in 2017" mechanism, unlike the maniacs on commons, they have "undelete in 2130". ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: article makes no claim of notability. Also does not come close to meeting any of the requirements of WP:NSOFT. Being an operating system isn't notable in and of itself.  Most undergraduate CS programs around the world have courses involving the creation of an Operating system.  In response to the claims regarding Bodhi Linux, I will say that at least Bodhi Linux appears to be in wide enough use that it is listed (even ranked) at distrowatch.org.  While I am not making a claim as to whether distrowatch is WP:RS or not, it is among the most popular sites for information about linux distributions, and it ranks distros based on the number of hits the pages receive. That it does not at this time include ToriOS (and I am unable to find any other site with information about ToriOS) it appears to me that this is likely a page made by the creator. &#8213;  Padenton  &#124;&#9742; 18:36, 22 March 2015 (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.