Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open AT OS

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Wavecom. Favoring merge and redirect over delete since this seems like a potential search term. No prejudice to splitting it off again later if sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open AT OS

[edit]
Open AT OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested CSD-G11. Two editor and IP commented that it appeared to be "spammy" or an ad in edit summaries or talk page. Not notable software, no verifiable or reliable sources listed, all appear to be self-published. GNews shows what appear to be press releases, but no other coverage. IP contesting CSD stated on talk page that there are few to no sources for the software, and that it needs to be here to get the information out. GregJackP (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep One Editor and the above user feel that the article is "spammy", its a very notable OS if your in the very small field of people working with micro-controllers and GSM modems. As I said before this is not MS Windows, your not going to find much on this OS other than the data from the vendor, but it is widely used in GPS and Asset Tracking hardware- as such its a great note on the history and evolution of this OS.. I will work to edit the article because to be honest this is the one place with all that data delivered in such a clean manner- I already pulled the adish wording out, contrary to GregJackP- I still dispute putting something as harsh as the CSD G11 Tag on the article. Just because you dont know what the article is about, and you dont work in embedded electronics- does not mean its not noteworthy. Please see the article discussion page for more info- give this thing a chance, its not that hard to clean up... in fact I think I have already cleaned most of the ad-like stuff, but not being a professional wiki-writer I cannot fully judge the neutrality of the article, I can tell you it does not read like an AD at this point.

Also take a look at some of the other Real Time OS'es see- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THEOS VERY few sources document this OS, but it is notable and important- at least for a guy like me who reads these articles.

64.207.236.42 (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Please do not rearrange people's comments. There is no need to separate arguments whereby "Keep" goes in one sectionm and "delete" in another, and choices other than keep or delete do not go in a category called "Does not want..." Mandsford (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Mandsford was unsure of how to format this so its easily readable, its not like the UI is great for new users- thanks for the cleanup. 64.207.236.42 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome-- things like this have happened to me before too. Mandsford (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to clarify some misinformation, two editors (myself and JzG indicated that the article had problems from being spammy, and a third (an IP - 76.117.247.55) stated it was an ad - three separate evaluations of the same problem.
  • The difference with THEOS is that it is apparently notable, although unreferenced in the Wikipedia article. There are multiple GBook hits that reference THEOS compared to zero for Open AT OS. Similar results when you look at GScholar/GNews hits - a number for THEOS, none for Open AT OS. That is the reason that Open AT OS is up for deletion, and THEOS is not - even if it were relevant to this discussion, which it is not. The article was nominated for deletion because I can find no verifiable, reliable sources that support its inclusion in Wikipedia. Without such references, it does not merit an entry and should be deleted. (GregJackP (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Hmm, thats not what I got, here is a quick sample query-
There are industry hits- they may not be impressive or in english but they are there- and thats without digging, thats just properly structuring a boolean query on google. -yes I know the "AND" is implied.
Like I said this is not a desktop OS hence very few articles will exist on it, what do you want- and O'Rilly's book on it? Because that will never happen this is not a consumer OS.
Do you want more links?
72.192.83.115 (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC) (The same user as the 64.207 IP for those wondering)[reply]
  • Reply Firstly, the answer to "Do you want more links?" is "No thank you. If these are typical of what you can supply then there is no point in giving more". I have checked every one of the links given and, in the cases where the links were to Google searches, I have followed up at least the first page of hits. Many of the pages I found are not independent, but either Wavecom publications, press releases, download sites providing Open AT, an advertisement for a commercial product using Open AT, or other non-independent sources. Some of the pages were not reliable sources (e.g. the Wikipedia article on Wavecom, etc). Many of the pages give only passing mention to Open AT. In short, although I found an impressive number of pages mentioning Open AT, I found nothing at all that indicated notability by Wikipedia's criteria. The fact that it is "not a consumer OS" is irrelevant for two reasons. Firstly there are thousands of Wikipedia articles on topics which are not aimed at consumers or the general public, but which have perfectly good references to more technically-oriented sources: if Open At is notable the same can happen here. Secondly, if there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources then the topic does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, no matter what the reason for that lack of coverage. The notability guideline says that a topic should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and does not go on to say "unless it has not received such coverage because it is an obscure technical topic that most people aren't expected to want to read about". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources cited in the article, and, despite efforts shown above, no evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources shown here either, nor found by my searches. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thats fine looks like wikipedia is so bloody bureaucratic now that you have taken what could be the most vast consortium of encyclopedic data and converted it to a litigious stream pointless arguments about why you should delete data, after looking at some of the other articles its clear wikipedia has no set standard, or that the standard is always changing- I have even found groups that pride themselves on deleting data, sure there is a lot of spam, but I have found a number of great articles deleted by groups like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deletionist_Wikipedians You know its incredible, we have an OS here that has legitimate industry use and the OS is well documented here- since you all seem to be lawyers looking for a reason to kill this, first it was an AD, then it was not notable, no it does not have enough sources. Oddly the AD issue was fixed and the notable issue was fixed- I know wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but this is not foretelling anything- the lack of data is because this OS is rare- very few people work with it, but it goes into some rather important products.So you have two choices, be logical and keep the article- or be a lawyer and look for small things you can pick at to remove this article, despite the fact that it covers some rare data that is used by an entire subset of embedded developers. I bet if I knew wiki-law I could make this much more fun, sadly I don't care enough to learn wiki-law or even create a user name and this is the reason why- the developers of this site for the most part seem to revel in squabbles over stupid wiki-law, common sense no more. This is my last post, IP OUT

64.207.236.42 (talk)

  • Delete. Contrary to the press releases, Wikipedia is not meant to be the sum of all human knowledge, not even the sum of all useful knowledge. Only that knowledge that has independent coverage in reliable sources gets a page here. So, if anyone wants to know more about this OS, they'll have to deal with the proprietary manuals, and little blurb in the company's article, Wavecom. That's the way things are. Pcap ping 14:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm using it myself right now during a hardware programming course at university and wanted to get some information about it. I know that this is not an argument for keeping an article, it also hardly supports it's notability though. But then again, embedded OSes of this kind are not a very popular theme in the mass media anyway, also keep in mind which links you might break by deleting a two year old article.
    Please point out what exactly you find spammy about this article and maybe rewrite that. --Mewtu (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wavecom; does not appear to be notable enough for its own article. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_AT_OS&oldid=1069823222"