- 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 as not asserting notability. If you want a copy of this article to include information in the FreeDOS article, let me know. Alex Muller 21:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FreeDOS-32 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod, no reason given. Unreleased fork of open-source software (FreeDOS); being open source, anyone can simply copy the original code and start a new project claiming that significant improvements are underway. This fork has no sources and no notability. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N, no reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Not to poke fun at you Ham, but your comment about it's lack of notability because "anyone can simply copy the original code and start a new project claiming that significant improvements are underway" reminds me a lot of Wikipedia. Hehehe... Moving on then: The article is well written; concise, lucid, and understandable to someone who doesn't deal with a lot of open source programs. As for the notability, I would say this article is notable because it appears to be making quite a few differences between it and the original FreeDOS("such as a 32-bit, flat memory-model, optimized Input/Output, support for many file systems, compatibility layers and support for modern standards, amongst others"). Note: I would think that this kind of notability would be rare because as said earlier, it is a variant of an open source program. But! that brings me to my next point: "no reliabe sources" -Masterpiece200. I wholeheartedly disagree sir; Google brings up quite a few hits, including the original, unconnected FreeDOS site, a small forum dedicated to it's history and progress (I know forums are not a legit source, but this is an open source project, and the forum yields posts about the progress of the project from the programmers), and whatever this site is. As for the site listed on the article, I will admit that it might not be as reliable as others, because it is not a secondary source. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any site can copy Wikipedia, which does not make them notable for it. Making (or more accurately, claiming to be making) changes to a work is not a tenet of notability. Notability requires significant coverage by reliable independent sources. Suggesting that the original FreeDOS is "unconnected" is good for a chuckle, but otherwise I'd assume that the interest of FreeDOS's author is not independent of the fact that he created the original (not that a simple news blurb would qualify as coverage anyway). As you admit, forums, primary sources, and certainly "whatever" sites (btw, what it is, is just a search portal) are not legitimate to establish notability. That leaves us with no reliable secondary sources for the topic, which is the working definition of non-notability. The article is a stub, so I'm not sure what kind of grading scale you are using to call it well-written, other than perhaps to suggest that it isn't patent nonsense, which I agree with, but which does not solve the issue of notability. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well written in the sense that is 1) not patent nonsense and 2) clear. To me, the article makes sense. Thanks for the correction for the sources, it is much appreciated. But, I'm sure this article deserves a place, and I think I can argue you on the notability factor; wouldn't having obtuse differences from the original make it notable in that it is a variant of an item that is notable? (or does that fall under "notability is not inherited"?) And again, even if it doesn't get it's own article, could at least get a merge with the original FreeDOS article? Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No attribution of notability to independent sources. It's not even a fork of FreeDOS, just a different platform implementation. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article fails WP:N. No reliable, independent sources. Whether or not it is a good product or a good article is immaterial. Protonk (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with FreeDOS until more reliable sources are found. A good discussion of why can be found here. RCX (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.