Talk:XtreemOS

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 October 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Discussion about deletion

As the page has been restored, I restart a discussion page. I have no idea if any discussion was attempted before deletion. I expect now that tagging open source projects for deletion during summer ad deleting them SHOULD take into account a discussion anyway (if I understood deletion rules correctly). --Max-CCC (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you brought this page back, this OS is creating great tecknologies--Debianwiki (talk

Notability Tag

I fail to grasp what is the notability criterion used in this case. As most of the EU ICT projects contribute to the open source base and scientific advances, and the information related is not present anywhere else in a structured way, in my opinion previous wikipedi apag with the list of FP6 and FP7 projects, and links to pages with a short, wikipedia compliant description of projects, it was much better than the current approach: a single page for all FP programs, with close to zero information, and all the project pages removed. Wikipedia pages for FP6 projects were providing unbiased information, thanks to the verification process of all the project pages, while now the reader is left with the project web sites (which are definitely biased) if still active, and a long list of project names which is of little use. Does notability mean in broad use right now? To take the reasoning to extremes, we should e.g. delete the page for windows95. --Max-CCC (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources Tag

As in many fields of scientific research, the primary sources are the most concise and informative. They are considered reliable when they are subject to peer review and community scrutiny. As the page contained references officially published after peer review, and no advertising claim was made that the system was particularly good, bad or popular, I do not see the primary sources tag as justified. However I can look for secondary sources if someone explains me why should I do that. --Max-CCC (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy and answers all of the above questions: see WP:GNG. This doesn't meet those guidelines, so given that you have undone the redirect, I'll now proceed with nominating this article for deletion. --Crusio (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's no easy answer, I read the guidelines already and the page meets them. Please state why it is your definition of "primary source" that is ambiguous IMHO. Would you please state it? However, I'll switch the talk to the deletion page as it is where things happen now. --Max-CCC (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on XtreemOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]