Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Tiger OS
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Wikiacc (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense AlistairMcMillan 08:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. - AlistairMcMillan 08:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely non-verifiable. What the heck were they thinking naming it the same thing as the Mac OS distro?--Isotope23 17:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- and non-existent... in development OS. Forgot to mention that.--Isotope23 17:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source that proves this is actually in development and not a figment of someone's imagination? Just curious. I couldn't find anything on it. AlistairMcMillan 18:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt. IMHO, whether he has written 100,000 lines of code or just dreams about writing his own OS over a bowl of cheerios, the net effect is the same: No verifiable existence. I couldn't find any reference to real development either though.--Isotope23 19:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source that proves this is actually in development and not a figment of someone's imagination? Just curious. I couldn't find anything on it. AlistairMcMillan 18:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- and non-existent... in development OS. Forgot to mention that.--Isotope23 17:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. --Apyule 06:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - although I can't verify it, this could be related to "Tiger OS" and "Petasoft" (see votes here and here respectively) - some awfully vague operating system project "based on Linux and FreeDOS" or something. Especially when the earliest version of the article rambles stuff about Windows Vista and stuff. Even if this is completely unrelated to those, this stuff is not yet notable unless they have an actual release out, or some show of an active development community (which is to say a website up, even preliminary, and publicly viewable CVS/etc repository which shows they have bazillion lines of code and new hyuuge commits coming in every week). As it stands, this is completely, utterly unverifiable. Plus I find absolutely nothing on google about the author either. --Wwwwolf 11:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed with all of the above.Rhetoricalwater 22:24, 14 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.