Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DOS 0

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. j⚛e decker^talk 06:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DOS 0 (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)

First, Wikipedia is not a changelog. Second, searching for "DOS 0" on the Web or Google Books gives only white noise. View statistics show literally zero hits before this page was created. Nobody looks up "DOS 0" (On second thought, this may not be a good argument; this tool measures articles hits, not searches. Though Google Trends notes about seventy searches per month and declining, but only from Portugal, so these are probably false positives.), because nobody uses this name. It has been contrived by the page's creator. — Keφr 10:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This does seem to be a WP:PTM violation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This page has so many problems and violates so many policies that I don't know where to begin. All of them stem from the fact that the article has no purpose. For example:
  1. It groups loosely related links because they are all preview releases and have DOS in their names. (WP:IINFO violation.)
  2. Although it is plausible to refer to 86-DOS, QDOS and FreeDOS as DOS because they are all disk operating systems, it is aberrant to use "DOS" to refer to the title portion of a specific version of them. (WP:PTM violation.) It is analogous to saying operating system 3.1 to mean Windows NT 3.1.
  3. The title is inventive. (WP:TITLE violation.) Let's assume that a computer program titled "DOS" actually exists. It is uncommon to use "DOS 0" to refer to its prerelease versions.
  4. Even if we ignore WP:PTM violation, the number of links is artificially increased. Most of these links refer to one article and the whole page can be summarized into three links.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Codename Lisa. The entire premise of this page is that various pre-release versions of MS-DOS are referred to as DOS 0. This is a dubious claim. Reyk _YO! 23:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 18:38, 15 September 2014 (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.