Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlin 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marlin OS

Marlin OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. PROD contested by IP with no comment. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 14:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 14:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be an attempt to capitalize on the name recognition of Sailfish OS or Google's Project Marlin, but this article describes something completely different, made by different developers. Jergling (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Save Sailfish is also the name of a fish Sailfish and even Marlin is a breed of fishes Marlin this article seems to be legit, even the references point towards a legitimate product — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:8302:5796:7DAF:B8EF:E77F:B38C (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Warning: Joke incoming) Well, damn. I guess my site "VladimirPutinSexCam.fakewebsite.gov" should get an article because Vladimir Putin has an article. (Joke complete)

There are no real references in your article, just links to the developer's personal Youtube and github. Lastly, you are an obvious sock of the article creator, and you should stop editing anonymously immediately. If you're going to defend your own article, do it as yourself. Jergling (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there are no actual improvements to be made as they are non-existent, everything here is simply trivial and unconvincing, nothing amounting to what is needed for genuine improvements. SwisterTwister talk 01:24, 16 November 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.