Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Odyssey (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. merge can be done without a finding here Spartaz Humbug! 03:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Odyssey

AfDs for this article:
Windows Odyssey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable "code name" for Windows XP with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Attempts to properly redirect to Development of Windows XP are continually being reverted over the last few months by several SPA accounts and IPs, with a "source" to a self-published website given as support for its report. ANI report on the users has already been filed, but deletion seems the best bet as there is no actual significant coverage or use of this term to refer to anything other than someone's similarly named shareware application. Previous AfD closed with no consensus, where it was noted that nothing in the article could be verified, failing WP:V, which continues to remain true (personal sites can not verify anything). Looking at the arguments, in which there appears to be some socking/meating going on, it seems as those more supported deletion or merging than keeping it as it. As some editors continue to accept the merge, however, it seems another discussion to determine true consensus is needed. Due to the heavy IP socking occurring on the article over the last several months, heavy admin attention will likely be needed here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete history and redirect. Like I said in the previous AfD: only one source, and of dubious reliability in this case. Pcap ping 18:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The only meat-puppetry I was ever involved in on Wikipedia, was about the Little Big Adventure articles, for which I already apologized even. - OBrasilo (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He explicitly "claims" there was none, while noting that friends from his forums came to his help on the article. Per the full ANI, links have already been given showing earlier posts he made to the same forum asking his "friends" to come help him with a separate article (which he only half admits to) at a different forum. And as he is the administrator of the forum he mentions, he can easily remove evidence for the current recruiting. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I'm NOT an Administrator of the Magic Ball Network Forums, where I have indeed recruited meat-puppets for help with the Little Big Adventure articles, no "half-admission" there, since it's public and all. I also apologized on that, and anyway, it's un-related to these two articles here.
Second off, obviously on my forum (OSBetaGroup), the majority of the members agree with me on stuff. It would be surprising to have a forum, where the majority of the members disagree with the Administrator on the stuff. And I can't force them not to edit the articles here on Wikipedia.
Third off, I was wrong about the 76.x.x.x guy, after all. This one isn't from any forum of mine, in fact, this one is Lad Hattiur (I just remembered him using the same 76.x.x.x kind of IP on IRC back then, going to the exact same geographical location, even), a person, whom I only know on IRC, and who even insulted me on IRC(!) the only time we met there, LOL. So really, even if the guy agrees with me on these few articles here, he hates me.
Fourth off, I never delete posts on my forum, I only move them to the Spam and Trash section (which is why, statistically, the vast majority of the forum's posts are there).
Fifth off, as for the letter stuff, again, separate incident, and I merely told my Japanese contact about this Wikipedia discussion as a completely by the way matter, and he, on his own accord, decided to ask the author, who is his close friend, to tell him her opinion about it, which he then kindly forwarded to me. I didn't ask him to ask the author, actually, on the contrary, I clearly told him not to bother with this Wikipedia stuff, since it's not worth the time to fight for some random articles. - OBrasilo (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these codenames are only marginally related to Windows XP, Id actually propose a combined Windows Neptune and Odyssey article, instead, to combine these two into it.

the codenames resumed development after Windows XP released, using XP codebase this time, I have builds of both, so i know that for a fact. so they werent really codenames for windows xp.

Lin Godzilla (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I am quite sure that there are publications from around 1999/2000 that would give a fair deal of coverage to this once under-construction O/S. Finding them may be a problem though, as online archives often do not go back that far. Another issue is the current poor state of the article, but again that can be remedied. wjematherbigissue 23:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep this is the sort of subject where the criteria for what counts as RS will often be somewhat loser than the ordinary. As Wjemather says, there is a reasonable chance of development. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Puppets are dealt with by blocking. Article issues are dealt with through editing. Having giving thought to the comments here, the potential this article has for improvement, and in consideration of a brief serach [5], [6], [7], I have struck my "merge" up above. Now the the article belongs to Wikipedia, I believe it can be improved through regular editing. With respects, the GNG is a guideline, used by default when it seems applicable, but it will not and does not apply to all subjects. The notability of an idea or concept is not judged by the same criteria as notability for an person or a film. Further research in archives and technical journals not available online would be reasonable and prudent. Surmountable issues are never proper cause for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linking to Google results is not research, and Verifiability is core policy, not a guideline. Which of your hits do you claim to source this article? I see a single, very minimal, hit on casual inspection of the web searches, unless you count links to warez downloads; and I have to wonder if you looked at any of the Google books hits at all, since not even one mentions this product: all are chance juxtapositions of the words "Windows" and "Odyssey". —Korath (Talk) 05:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      With a brief web search I see nearly 8,000 hits for "Windows Odyssey" (the 2 words together in quotes and not seperate nor without). I would be quite foolish to claim them all good... or all bad... based upon looking at a random few... and unfortunately, I am not able to spend the next few days researching all 8,000. But to me, the nearly 8,000 hits is suggestive enough to allow me a reasonable presumption that within that mountain of hits, there are the 3 or 4 or 5 or 7 that would satisfy requests for meeting notability... and further suggestive that with additional research in archives and technical journals not available online, the article can be brought into line. But the amount of work required means it will not happen immediately. It is at times like this that I am appreciative of Wikipedia being a work in progress that accepts that it is not perfect and that it has no deadline for perfection.
      In a nutshell: The discussions above have convinced me that the subject is notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've rewritten the article from what source actually says. Please watch out for SPAs and IPs pushing more WP:OR speculation in it. Pcap ping 11:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now rewritten what you left and added more sources which incidentally, were found very quickly and easily. The full contents of this article might shed even more light. wjematherbigissue 13:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's always better to have more sources, even though they don't add anything to what I could extract from Thurrott's article, and the mainstream press reports are more vague regarding the code base, e.g. [8] vaguer, project known as "Odyssey," and A company representative described Odyssey only as another "future NT-based operating system." or [9] Odyssey, the upgrade to Windows 2000, [10] Odyssey, the follow-up to Windows 2000, [11] Whistler also supplants Odyssey, referred to by some sources as NT 5.5, which had been slated as the first full-fledged upgrade to Windows 2000. etc. Pcap ping 14:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hence my weak keep above. With a project that was still in the early stages of development, it will always by difficult to uncover detailed information, but that does not mean it is impossible if someone is prepared to do the legwork. wjematherbigissue 14:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Windows Neptune, and Windows Odyssey, while related to the development of Windows XP, were not code-names of Windows XP, so to merge them into that article would basically reduce them to temporary projects, which led to Windows XP, which isn't exactly true - as Lin Godzilla said above, there exist Builds of both projects compiled after XP was publicly released, and on the XP code base, as opposed to the Windows 2000 code base used in the Builds compiled before the release of Windows XP.
This is the only reason, why I oppose the merge. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your claimed warez beta activities notwithstanding, this product was never released. And no reliable source says that any build of it was ever leaked. Pcap ping 11:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no sourcing outside of your fansite speculation that says this codename survived XP. Please base your discussion on what Wikipedia deems as quality verifiable sourcing and not what strangers write on fansite webboards. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Keep This Neptune Odyssey is not merely a codename for XP (as Longhorn is for Vista and Blackcomb/Viena for Win7). --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 11:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete history and redirect to Development of Windows XP Even after re-writing and sourcing, it still says fundamentally the same thing as what is at the development article. This article is never going to grow past what is already written elsewhere. We do not need duplicated content. Odyssey, as shown by sources, was a minor development fork ten years ago. This subject matter has no growth potential. Anything to be written about it has been. There is a weight problem here, because the attention this article receives on Wikipedia is far more than what the rest of the world has shown it. A standalone article lends importance to a minor subject of duplicated content. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • Other than the fact that the team that worked on it formed part of the Whistler team, Odyssey was not part of the development of XP. As such that would be a inappropriate redirect. The sources do not show Odyssey as a development fork. On the contrary, it was to be a the next OS for the business market following Win2000 before MS re-evaluated their strategy. Article length and potential for future expansion are irrelevant, and there are no issues with either WP:UNDUE or duplication. wjematherbigissue 11:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There in fact is growth potential for this article. One thing to keep in mind is that so far, there have been no builds of Windows Odyssey leaked yet. Taking that into consideration, what User:SchmuckyTheCat just stated is not true. In addition to that, Windows Odyssey was and still is considered to be a significant preliminary release. Windows Neptune and Odyssey are notable in fact. And the content is verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.20.47 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC) — 76.234.20.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment IP above is one of several suspected meatpuppets of OBrasilo -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The IP Address 76.234.20.47 is a dynamic IP Address and I have no idea who User:OBrasilo is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.20.47 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully protected. The article has been fully protected by User:The ed17 due to edit warring. Pcap ping 14:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no assertion of notability, and there was no released product! This article can never be "improved" unless we imagine that WP:N includes every minor development cycle of Microsoft's products. The infobox saying "Part of the Microsoft Windows family" makes Wikipedia look silly because it is just a total misunderstanding of the normal development process of large projects. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this article is kept, and after the protection lifts, I intend to rename it (see its talk page--there seems to be consensus for now) and also change the infobox so it doesn't give the impression of a released product (thanks for pointing that out). We should have a different type of infobox for notable MS codenames like Cairo (operating system). Pcap ping 10:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because Microsoft Odyssey was never released, does not automatically mean that it's not notable. It isn't a "minor development cycle" either. Part of what makes it notable is that the development of Neptune and Odyssey were cancelled and merged into the development of Whistler.76.205.142.13 (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Development of Windows XP This article is too short, has similarity of context with Windows XP and has little potential for expansion. Therefore, it is eligible for a merger, which will solidify its notability. Fleet Command (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I am flummoxed at anyone who wants to keep this.Jarhed (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per arguments by nominator, Fleetcommand and all those in between. This is yet another AfD being disrupted by socks and outside canvassing. Shame, and I hope the closing nominator dismisses such commentary without consideration. If the nominator states previous agreements to merge or redirect were thwarted, the redirect should be permanently protected and the merge target closely watched. Miami33139 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, there was no agreement or consensus to merge. It was originally performed in July 2009 ([12]) and has been warred about ever since.. Previous AfD closed with a suggestion to go to the talk page which never happened. Result, more edit warring.
      This article, and the one on Neptune, have been hit hard by continuous additions of false information and original research by an array of rogue contributors, but it has now been cleaned up and is properly referenced. I feel that we are here not because of the notability of the subject but because of the disruption caused by these editors, who are possibly not helping to keep the article with their input here either. If you can copy and paste, then so can I. wjematherbigissue 22:53, 12 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Windows_Odyssey_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1080270393"