Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafeRTOS

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 Merge to FreeRTOS (non-admin closure).—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SafeRTOS

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an account related to WITTENSTEIN High Integrity Systems with no other edits other than to promote SafeRTOS. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in EETimes proves notability, and I am compiling other references from Reliable Sources to add. Andrew Longhurst (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE. Andrew Longhurst (talk · contribs) has a Conflict of interest and is Engineering & Business Development Manager at Wittenstein High Integrity Systems of which SafeRTOS is their product. --Hu12 (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles in Embedded Systems Design Europe and EE Times are notable coverage with depth. Also found references in EDN, and Embedded Computing Design. Celtechm (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to FreeRTOS: formally, we need multiple independent reliable sources on topic per WP:PRODUCT. As the note in the guideline explains, several articles by the same publisher (EETimes) count per one source, as well as preprints (Embedded Systems Design Europe reprints EETimes' article) are not separate sources. Furthermore, the EETimes' articles are specifically problematic, as one of them is a press release, another is written by WITTENSTEIN's employee and only uses SafeRTOS as example and third one seems neither enough detailed nor focused on the nomination's subject (though I can't bet on this, as it costs some money I'm not willing to invest into this deletion discussion). Other sources for subject are yet less independent. All of this suggests that the subject is far from being notable. Still, as the article explains, the subject is closely related to FreeRTOS, so it can be described there without bloating the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per Czarkoff. The article doesn't appear to have multiple independent reliable sources, press releases et al don't satisfy that criteria. - Sudo Ghost 20:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - a news search also turns up this. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a closely paraphrased press release with all statements either quoted or disclaimed responsibility ("according to"). Effectively the "weak" !votes are generally used in the lack of good merge target, so that content is either kept or lost permanently. In this case the content has a solid place to go, so "weak keep" looks somehow weird. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case I mean that some content should be preserved, but can't easily determine whether or not it belongs in a standalone article or merged as described above. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:48, 4 September 2012 (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.