Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Odyssey


 * 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   no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete. Whether to keep or to merge can be decided on the talk page. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Windows Odyssey

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Co-nomination with the article Windows Neptune.

WP:COI disclosure: I have trivial amounts of code that is probably present in these demo projects. I don't know how ten year old code presents a conflict other than a wish for historical accuracy.

The policy reason to delete this is lack of notability, and lack of sources. This article has one single third-party source. That is not enough to base a Wikipedia article on and we have a lack of both verifiability and truth here.

The second reason to delete is that it is just plain wrong. The article contains several more statements that are completely unsourced and unremovable because of the efforts of people involved in a fan forum. The single source for this article, Paul Thurrot, is a somewhat reliable source in the context of Microsoft Windows, but not really. Paul Thurrot is like an über fan site. This is an instance where he is not reliable because in this timeframe of publication, what he says is speculation. Paul Thurrot publishes two kinds of speculation: his own, and what he is leaked from inside Microsoft. What is leaked isn't reliable either because he is fed misinformation on purpose. (Remember that COI disclosure? I'm a better RS than Paul Thurrot.  I've edited and been published by Microsoft Press about Microsoft Windows, but not about this article.)

If you remove anything unsourced, you are left with one sentence. If you look at that sentence from the position that it was speculation you are left with nothing. There is a proper place for what little public information exists about this project, it is the article Development of Windows XP. Unfortunately, trying to enforce a redirect is blocked by the efforts of a fan forum where a handful of people trade old Windows releases on BitTorrent who then write about their entirely original research "findings" on Wikipedia. Ars Technica even wrote an article based on the OR in Wikipedia - that is the horrible situation the OR policy is designed to prevent, we risk basing further references on stuff that first appeared, wrongly, in Wikipedia. The proper thing to do with these two articles is Delete, redirect, and protect SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * all versions of windows are notable. Some of our articles on software have been in practice based upon personal knowledge as a tacit exception to WP:V's requirement of WP:RSs, in acknowledgement that for this limited set of topics, the people here are the reliable sources. I know it's in a sense IAR, but it still helps the encyclopedia's purpose of providing knowledge.  DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a version of Windows. It's an internal technology demo that got leaked.  There is nothing notable about it.  Take a stable build of the core, add some experimental code for an unfinished feature, give it a code name and show it to a CEO.  This happens several times during the beta process.  This one was leaked.  Are you seriously advocating that we have entirely original research articles based on speculation from people who downloaded the build from peer-to-peer networks?  That is what this is.  The authors of this article aren't people with special knowledge.  In fact, I am here, I do have the knowledge, and I am saying there is little to no factual basis for these articles.  That's why the OR and RS policy exists. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Verifiability due to a lack of reliable sources, and as this software is unreleased. Andrea105 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I strongly disagree with DGG's suggestion that Wikipedia is somehow improved through the proliferation of original research concerning software -- "the encyclopedia's purpose" is not merely one "of providing knowledge", but of providing accurate and credible knowledge, which cannot be assured without reliable sources. Andrea105 (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is on a demo version of Microsoft software. No real harm in an article of this nature. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 03:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No real harm except it is completely unsourced and contains information that is total conjecture. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep SchmuckyTheCat, please note, that I have daily contact with a few official Microsoft Beta Testers, four of which have been such already at the time, when Windows Neptune, and Windows Odyssey, were released. They can assure you, that Windows Neptune was planned as the successor to Windows 2000, and Windows Odyssey as the successor to Windows Neptune. The version numbers were 5.5, and 6.0, respectively. They even have Builds for it. My contacts each have at least two Builds of Neptune, and two of Odyssey.

Also, as for sources, the articles are sourced by the screenshots inside them. To consider those screenshots un-reliable sources, would mean essentially, that you think, that they're fake, which can be considered as a personal attack at the users who uploaded them, since you call them fakers, and frauds, basically.

The screen-shots come from BetaArchive.co.uk, which is the top internet forum for Operating System Alpha's, and Beta's, and the screen-shots were made by a reliable user of that forum.

Also, there are on-line available Microsoft anti-trust law-suit documents, which further prove, that Windows Neptune (spelled NepTune in those documents), was planned to be the successor to Windows 2000. Also, even a Service Pack was planned for it, codenamed Triton. Again, mentioned in those documents.

And to prove, that Odyssey was supposed to be NT 6.0, there are the sources by Paul Thurrott.

So I think, that there are more, than enough sources available on-line for these two articles. Also, SchmuckyTheCat, you have made mistakes about Windows before, such as when you claimed, that Windows 3.2 Simplified Chinese had for Workgroups features, which Wengier Wu from the China DOS Union later successfully proved wrong, so I would kindly ask you to refrain from labelling yourself as an expert, when you made such an elementary mistake before. - OBrasilo (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad you have friends who were external beta testers. I was in the CORE OS group. I saw every build. There are builds with my name on them. Screenshots aren't sources. The issue here is sourcing and you haven't shown anything except Paul Thurrot, who was there for PR leaks - not exactly reliable. I'm not saying this demo never existed, just that it isn't notable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

3 verifiable sources in article: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_gold.asp, http://www.winhistory.de/more/nept.htm (in german), screenshots at http://neosmart.net/gallery/v/os/Neptune/ more outside of article: http://www.activewin.com/faq/neptune.shtml google gives many results to good sources There are multiple external verifiable sources on this topic. 174.112.211.143 (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep many verifiable external sources (about windows neptune specifically, this article is actually listed on digg http://digg.com/software/Windows_Neptune:_The_OS_That_Never_Was):
 * Winhistory.de is a user forum. It is not a reliable source. Digg points to the Wikipedia article. That is not a source. Screenshots are not sources. Activewin is a usergenerated site, not a source. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Verifiable reputable source: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp_gold.asp 174.112.211.143 (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is Paul Thurrot, one single source already referenced, who was manipulated by people inside the company. Wikipedia cannot write articles based on one source like that, and this single source would still result in the Odyssey article being deleted and the Neptune article cut by 80%. The entire existence of these articles cannot rest on one source. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Win-history de isn't a forum. It has a forum but it's different. Microsoft also has discussion forum, but that doesn't make Microsoft themselves a discussion forum.

As for an user-generated site - someone tested it, and published a site about Neptune, Wikipedia then can use this site.

So it's YOU here, who rejects any site about it, as un-reliable. If Microsoft posted their own article about it, you'd say it's un-reliable. If an independent source tests Neptune, and post their own site about it, you say it's un-reliable. So what kind of sources do you want for it? It's an old OS, no major publication will talk about it anymore.

Also, I mentioned the Anti-Trust lawsuit documents as a source for it, which you clearly ignored.

You also consistently ignore my comments about your own unreliability for judgment and writing articles on Windows. You couldn't even get the features of Windows 3.2 Simplified Chinese right, and you're expecting us to let you have your own way with two articles of something more important?

And again, how many sources are there for Windows Nashville? Yet, you have no problems with that staying, but you have problems with Windows Neptune, and Windows Odyssey staying. Taking double standard, are we?

Not to mention, you worked for MS, so you're involved in the company, and might be trying to cover up facts about Neptune, and Odyssey, hence your insistance on having the articles converted to mere redirects. Now, it's up to YOU to prove it's not so. - OBrasilo (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Merge with/redirect to Development of Windows XP WP:Verifiability != WP:Notability. The article is poorly sourced, perhaps, but that alone is not a reason for deletion. The fact is that any 'insiders' are probably breaking confidentiality agreements, which is illegal. The second fact is that these insiders have a conflict of interest. This does not necessarily mean these editors cannot work on the article, but it does mean that they have a bias towards its notability. Here-say is not verifiable, and constitutes WP:Original research. Again, however, this is not a reason for deletion. Any Windows product is notable. However, what should be looked at is what is done with other codenames. Windows Longhorn redirects to the Development of Windows Vista. Likewise, these two should redirect to Development of Windows XP (as should Windows Whistler now that I look at it). The material on the page should be moved into that article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  02:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Provide sources or go away. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * That sort of comment is just not acceptable. Please don't be snippy towards others. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  02:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see, WP:TALK. 1 (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is exactly the outcome I proposed and have been trying to accomplish for about six months. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Floydian, Windows Nashville for one, doesn't redirect to Development of Windows 98. And there's a big difference between Longhorn, and Neptune/Odyssey. Longhorn became Vista, and had the same version number as Vista. Neptune/Odyssey were a separate line, with different version numbers, then scrapped (NOT merged, except for tiny fragment, such as the bug report thing) into Windows XP.


 * So, merging these articles into Development for Windows XP would reduce the projects, which were separate, also having Builds compiled after Windows XP already released, to mere minor Windows XP pre-Alpha's. And you'd need a very good rationale for why you want to do that.


 * Also, user SchmuckyTheCat avoids mentioning, that he himself isn't un-involved in the issue, having apparently worked on said projects. So I'd like you to pay attention at his actions, because while they might look like good faith clean up, they might actually be vandalism in an attempt to cover up facts which his (present, or former maybe) employers, Microsoft Corp., would like to remain hidden from the public.


 * And the fact, that he reacted above, the way he did, just shows, in my humble opinion, that he IS hiding something here, or else, he would have had no reason to behave the way he did to me just above.


 * SchmuckyTheCat, stop asking for sources, when any source, which mentions these two codenames, seems to be automatically un-reliable for you. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of sources to verify the existence of these codenames and their place in Windows development. Looking over Windows Nashville, one thing that separates it from others is that it was never released or merged into Windows 98 (Which was being programmed separately), however, it could just as well be merged into the [Development of Windows 98]], as it is a rather short snippet of information. Odyssey and Neptune served as the base for what would become Windows XP, and are thus an integral part of its development. Neither article, however, is large enough to justify being a unique article at this point in time. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, as is. They were two of the most important Microsoft Windows projects ever made. I worked for MS, I worked on them & its not just random mock up code but real OSs. And there are plenty of sources for it, including Mr. Thurrott who is one of my best friends.


 * And user obrasilo above mentioned the MS anti trust lawsuit documents too, so we have two reliable sources (mr. Thurrott and the anti trust lawsuit) to base the articles on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lin Godzilla (talk • contribs) 23:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think, SchmuckyTheCat aside, that so far the discussion is headed towards Keep. TheGreenMartian (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge both to Development of Windows XP. Unreleased software, details sourced from one if any reliable sources. WP:EXISTS (in the MS internal revision control system, proof?) is not enough for WP:GNG. Pcap ping  08:57, 22 December 2009 (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.