Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimber OS

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimber OS

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

Unreleased web operating system currently in alpha; the linked website just has a YouTube video of the software. Fails WP:NSOFT with no sources. A Google search for "jimber os" returns this article, two YouTube links and somebody using the phrase unrelatedly on Twitter. McGeddon (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Unreleased doesn't bother me in the slightest, neither does alpha; I have seen things in the past with one or both of those attributes which could well pass WP's threshold for inclusion. The official website being sparse isn't even necessarily a big deal (but is certainly a significant warning flag). My position is entirely based on failure to credibly establish WP:NOTABILITY through at least one good WP:RS, and it looking probable that it will not be established in the short term. --Murph9000 (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — Unreleased, unreferenced, unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSOFT with no sources and unreleased and also fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Looks like self-advertising to me. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 05:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly nothing to suggest minimally convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 19 January 2016 (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.