Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embedded Parallel Operating System

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

Previously PRODded by RHaworth for being non-notable; endorsed by myself for same reason, as well as the fact that the creator appears to be representing the company that developed this software, as evidenced by their username and this comment on Midhart90's talk page. — Francophonie&Androphilie (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) Promotional article, and the only citations are 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]

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]