Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile Internet Experience

Mobile Internet Experience

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Linux distribution for a single laptop ~~that doesn't even have an article.~~ ViperSnake151 Talk 15:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:GNG not met. Yworo (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Notable: source 1 source 2 source 3. These were found by a 30 second google search. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These articles only make passing references to the OS as a component of HP Mini 1000. It does not suggest any independent notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OS is in the title of all three articles and receives enough coverage in each to signify notability... in my opinion. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 05:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But still; its a Linux distribution only shipped on one device. Make an article on the HP Mini 1000 itself and then you can talk about it all you want. ViperSnake151 Talk 05:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are not based on policy. It doesn't matter that it was only shipped on one device, it only matters if it is covered in reliable sources, which it is. It also doesn't matter if other stuff exists (or in this case doesn't exist). The OS's notability is independent of the device it runs on. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 06:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I assume you haven't seen HP Mini 1000 Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 06:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks notoriety, there is a specific guideline in which this article fails to meet WP:Software, it does not meet its criteria, lacking in-depth coverage from a reliable source from its particular field (oses), it is not subject of social integration, it is not widely reported by reviews, manuals, etc, it is not a historical piece of software. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea why I'm lobbying so hard to keep this article... but the fact is WP:NSOFT is an essay and WP:GNG trumps it. This OS has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I don't understand why this doesn't satisfy WP:N. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]