Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Windows Tiger

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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 06:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Windows Tiger

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

Hi. This two-sentenced article does not do a great job of complying with WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. Not only it fails to exhibit evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources but its sole source The Register (which is not a reliable source) says it is a rumor. I searched the Internet for more on this and the results were far from satisfactory. Codename Lisa (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does a poor job of explaining what its subject is or even what time period it was created in. Lack of sources and its status as a rumor don't help it out much either. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There might have been a project with this codename, but as it was never released it will never be sufficiently notable for an article. And a single source in The Register quoting a rumour is not reliable enough even for the mention in List of Microsoft codenames#Windows 3.1x/9x. I haven't found any other sources. There's this rather strange video showing what looks more like a hacked version of Windows Me. Mcewan (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article actually fails verifiability. Micrsoft did ahve a project by the codename of Tiger but it was video streaming technology and eventually became part of NetShow; all of which predates this supposed OS version. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2013 (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.