Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embedded Parallel Operating System

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded Parallel Operating System

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

Previously PRODded by

Je vous invite à me parler) 14:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. ~~No indication that the software is notable. No secondary sources.~~ (I've included a few sources)
self-published and are not considered reliable. The subject has been covered by Distributed Embedded Systems, From Specification to Embedded Systems Application, and Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing all published by Springer, but the significance of the coverage is borderline.--xanchester (t) 14:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm going to try to clean the article up. It may or may not be salvageable.--xanchester (t) 18:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Huntley 15:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Huntley 15:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep It appears that this article was tagged for deletion 16 hours after its creation. Looking at the EPOS web page, the Publications tab shows dozens of publications by multiple authors over a span of 12 years about EPOS and aspects of EPOS. I agree that there is a potential COI here. I am inclined to keep this article to see how it develops. But I am a new editor and am unclear on deletion policies regarding embryonic articles. Mark viking (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm struggling to tell whether what coverage there is here is independent. I found several conference proceedings, but from the parts that I can see I can't tell whether the papers concerned were written by the team who created EPOS. If anyone can provide links to clearly independent coverage it would be appreciated. --Michig (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. coverage not written by anyone from LISHA. It's common for academics to present several papers on their own work, and publications of that type are not indications of encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first version of the article was very poor. I edited the page and added more information about EPOS. Most of the references are from the project website [1], but I will substitute them by papers published in scientific journals and conference proceedings [2]. I am taking the considerations in this page into account while editing the page. I hope to have a very better version of the article by the end of this week. Arliones (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still unconvinced on notability. But might I ask if you're affiliated with either LISHA, EPOS, or the University of Santa Catarina? —
  Je vous invite à me parler) 15:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Yes. I'm affiliated to UFSC and I use EPOS since around 2002. Regarding notability, although EPOS is mostly used at UFSC, the system is being used in other institutions as well, specially within the context of wireless sensor network projects. We have been teaching courses on several conferences: WSCAD-2010[3], FISL-2011 [4], SBESC-2011[5], ESSE-2011[6], ESSE-2012[7]. Also, the system is being used in a project funded by
    University of Erlangen [10]. Arliones (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Are you
      Je vous invite à me parler) 08:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      No, that editor is the lab's secretary. Apparently, she tried to create a "generic" user for the lab. I'll ask her to create a new, personal account. Arliones (talk) 16:42, 20 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Deletion also will result in an incremental improvement of the
systemic bias. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:22, 29 November 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.