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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real vmx and vmx

[edit]
Vmx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)
Real vmx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable software; no google hits or independent reviews. Blowdart | talk 16:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Vmx changed to redirect to Real vmx since it was a fork/copy of the article created by probable sockpuppet. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about a band, organization or anything like that. It's about an operating system released under GPL GNU public license. This means that it is the property of everyone in the whole world. I haven't seen the name of any organization or person (that doesn't already exist on the English Wikipedia) in this article.

If your wish is that every device in the future will run Windows XP please delete this article. But all your deceives will be very slow. I don't know if there is any commercial organization supporting you? And as a result of that they have forced you do delete this article. I though Wikipedia was for the community not the big corporations!?

Try entering "real vmx" at google:

This is what i get: Google hits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talkcontribs) 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC) — Alexuspol (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Actually I'm Swedish so I wrote that article first, although published later.
  • Can you please help me to explain how I can improve this article so it will be to your satisfaction I'm not native English language, though I spend several days on this article. If you have any suggestions, please help me rewrite this article, so it will be accepted!?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talkcontribs)
  • That's already been covered above. The article does not demonstrate it is notable. The easiest way to demonstrate notability is to show substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Independent sources would include trade journals, newspapers, major news websites, etc. Self-published and fan sources are not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to continue discussion on how to improve the article, I'll be glad to do so on Talk:Real vmx. However, the discussion here should focus on why the article should(n't) be deleted. If something comes up in the improvements, we can report it back here at that point. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can live without you attempts to break down my spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talkcontribs) 20:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I won't take part in this discussion anymore It just gets me more sad, it's your site and I respect

that you are the ones in charge of what's get pubished here. Bye bye... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talkcontribs) 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very inspiring. Maybe you should run for President of the World. WillOakland (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but some random student's personal web page is not a reliable source --Blowdart | talk 11:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well at least i got someone to support me now! So you can't feel so pleased with yourselfs when you are all simultaneously attacking one alone person. It is just half as hard when you have one person that believes in you... One person to share you thoughts with. One friend...I love you all!!!
You appear to be missing the point and turning this into a soapbox. How exactly is some random weird homepage, hung off a dynamic DNS site proof of anything? Indeed what does the support mean for a piece of software that is "pre-alpha", whatever that means. Really, getting fellow students to register and vote doesn't do you any favours whatsoever. --Blowdart | talk 12:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that, according to the Real VMX website, the project administrator is named alexuspol. At best, User:Alexuspol would seem to have a conflict of interest in the article—which could be easily corrected if there were independent reliable sources about the article. At worst, I'm thinking that the motives behind this article may be as much to promote and advertise the software as to write a neutral article. —C.Fred (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are weak, look at all the names on Brain Atlas Support Team, the Real VMX project only has 3 members according to the sourceforge page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talkcontribs) 13:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The person Per Karlsson on this page From Karolinska Institutet can verify that Brain Atlas Support Team is indeed associated with them. You can also find his signature in the list of names at Brain Atlas Support Team.
Wow. Yes. A doctoral student. That's great. You really don't get what makes notability here. --Blowdart | talk 13:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a student now, he is head of the MRI-PET psychiatric department at KI. Therefore he can verify that this page Brain Atlas is associated with Karolinska instututet, and that department. Your arguments are becoming more and more childish. If you want to do some serious investigation then get to work, so we can settle this matter once and for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talkcontribs) 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your threats are not welcome and may well cause you to be banned. --Blowdart | talk 13:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cant see why an investigation could pose a threat to you if these accusations false. Instead you would welcome these activities to be accepted as a more reliable source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talkcontribs) 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* You can be influenced by whatever you want, but not when you edit Wikipedia because it should be free from these kind of interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexuspol (talkcontribs) 14:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware the standard arguments, like independent sources, are the basis for all of the articles on Wikipedia. This guide demonstrates what reliable sources are and why they are important. This guide on verifiability may also be of interest. TNX-Man 14:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

[edit]

So I interpret the section break as: The settle about independent sources is settled. Either there are sources or there are not. That's just facts, you can't argue with that. No matter how motivated you are be some specific interest.

Arbitrary section break 1

[edit]
An investigation by a private or professional journalist can't be considered an illegal threat. It's just about his personal interest or the newspapers own interest... If nothing is printed there is no case...
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.