Wikipedia:Articles for deletion//e/ mobile operating system


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  09:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

/e/ mobile operating system

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that this is notable yet. Still in beta. Fram (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with nom's reasons. SJK (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. An article on /e/ exists on wikipedia in German with similar references at Manoj Nair (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also agree with nom's reasons for deletion. In regards to Manoj Nair, having a page already posted on an international Wikipedia page does not necessarily prove notability. WillPeppers (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability mentioned in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LineageOS as derivative work (fork). Creator being recognized veteran in open source community as creator of Mandriva Linux - both already on Wikipedia. Edit: as per comments from Ian.thomson and Elmidae below, professionally-published mainstream journalistic references shall be added to article to better qualify notability. Following selected original articles covering /e/ in an independently are probably good candidates:
 * Now Is the Time to Start Planning for the Post-Android World by Glyn Moody in Linux Journal
 * Is /e/ good or bad for mobility? by Jack Wallen in TechRepublic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick lp (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. I disagree with the delete arguments above: notability is real: just search for "e mobile os eelo" (with former name) and you can see the number of press articles released in many different countries and different languages. In this regard there is a press review about the project at: . Additionnally "beta" is not an argument for deletion. Many projects remain in beta for years and that is not related with their notability. Indidea (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Indidea (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. /e/ is a notable os as various forums and community groups have covered it. Number of articles have been published by different sites on internet. Just being in beta doesn't mean it's not notable. Amitkma (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Amitkma (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Keep this page. /e/ is a game changer Operating System, an open-source option for privacy. It is a notable fork of LineageOS, with a solid community. Olivierd13 (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Olivierd13 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. /e/ is not yet a major mobile OS but its current developments have been widely covered by many publications in (at least) English and French sites and papers worldwide. FranckLefevre (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — FranckLefevre (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. the OS has some coverage on youtube with users posting screen recordings demonstrating notability, AlexduCens (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC) — AlexduCens (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note Notability is established by citing professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but not dependent upon nor affiliated with it.  Being mentioned as a derivative work of a notable subject does not qualify it for notability because they are not specifically about this subject.  Press releases are useless because they're not independent.  Forums and Youtube videos are useless because anyone can start those up.  Saying that there are papers out there doesn't do any good if they're not cited.  These reasons are why your keep !votes (this process is not actually about the number of votes) are going to be ignored when the consensus is determined.  If you want to really establish a consensus of "keep," you will need to cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about /e/ but not dependent upon nor affiliated with it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * With ref to the above Note comment from Ian.thomson I would like to mention that references to /e/ or eelo as it was know earlier are there in the following newspapers. Indian Express LiveMint The Deccan Chronicle The register of UK The Irish times These references are all provided in the article. Manoj Nair (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Someone should report this for sockpuppeting, all these Keep recently created accounts only showing up here. I feel Manoj Nair doing this and should be noted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Pinging to see my comment above. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep  Notability is based on third party attention paid to the topic. /e/ has that, and it's already cited here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The meatpuppeting here is obvious and annoying, but there's no point in having a suitable article topic suffer for the morals of its proponents. What with the additional sources that cover the OS under the previous name of eelo, sufficient coverage appears to have been shown. Note that ref bombing has not actually improved the article much but made it look somewhat desperate - please be selective. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think this is a case of TOOSOON. It is not notable yet. Once it's released and gets external coverage, it should be reconsidered. My suspicion from the above comments is this article was meatpuppeted. Skirts89 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability is obvious even if the project is only one year old. I disagree with Skirts89 for two reasons: there is already a long track record of international press coverage for this project, and it has already been released in September: installable ROM for 49 different devices and specific online services including online drive, mail, meta-search engine etc. And being released as beta doesn't qualify for TOOSOON. Caliwing (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC) — Caliwing (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep the notability is obvious if you look on google or yahoo yo will see its notability Mar93393939 (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC) — Mar93393939 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. —  Newslinger  talk   10:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources:
 * "Eelo: A Google-less Android alternative emerges" from ZDNet
 * "Is /e/ good or bad for mobility?" from TechRepublic
 * "Now Is the Time to Start Planning for the Post-Android World" from Linux Journal
 * "Open-source alt-droid wants to know if it's still leaking data to Google" from The Register
 * "Eelo : l'OS mobile open source de Gaël Duval sort en bêta" from Le Monde informatique
 * Note that the operating system was formerly named "Eelo". The article should be moved to /e/ (operating system) as a parenthetical disambiguation under WP:NCDAB. I encourage all of the new editors in this discussion to read this guide on contributing to Wikipedia. —  Newslinger  talk   10:31, 11 December 2018 (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.