Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NuttX RTOS


 * 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.  Sandstein  13:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

NuttX RTOS

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable OS. Ridernyc (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please Don't Delete The NuttX RTOS article should not be deleted. Although you may not see it in your PC or laptop, NuttX is a relevant RTOS to developers of embedded systems. It has been on the List of real-time operating systems article for quite some time but had no article page. If you are not in the embedded systems market you probably are not aware of many of the other RTOS listed there.

NuttX is in active use in several embedded hardware projects. A Google search for NuttX RTOS produces 246,000 results.

https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=nuttx+rtos — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicromintUSA (talk • contribs) 03:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If it were to be removed based on Ridernyc's opinion that NuttX is "not notable" to him, then practically all other articles referenced in the List of real-time operating systems should also be removed. Evidently a music follower with no experience in embedded hardware or software will not be familiar with real time operating systems (RTOS).MicromintUSA (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please Don't Delete The NuttX RTOS does meet the notability requirements listed in Notability (web). The number of projects using NuttX (including those in the Google search above) can certainly be considered "verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners".

The Wikipedia articles listed below are devoted to RTOS that are much less "notable" than NuttX. The NuttX RTOS article should not be deleted!!! BeRTOS CapROS ChorusOS Contiki Deos DioneOS DNIX GEC DSPnano RTOS DSOS ERIKA Enterprise EROS HeartOS Helium INTEGRITY IntervalZero RTX ITRON MenuetOS MQX MERT Nano-RK OSE PikeOS PowerTV Prex pSOS (real-time operating system) QP REX OS RTXC Quadros SHaRK SINTRAN III Talon DSP RTOS T-Kernel THEOS TRON Project TUD:OS Unison RTOS Xenomai µnOS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.89.33.9 (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. &mdash;Al E.(talk) 15:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't have enough coverage for notability. It gets three paragraphs in a Linux Journal story and there's some coverage on download sites, but I'm not sure if they should be considered independent. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 09:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The article should clearly not be removed as the RTOS is currently gaining a lot of momentum and was only released in 2007. It is in active use e.g. at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in several research projects. Its features are quite differentiating to other RTOS, making it in particular important to give the public an overview of the differences, since it is not one out of many. LorenzMeier (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

acassis (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please Don't Delete NuttX is a great RTOS and have gaining too much attention along latest years. I have used it as main OS on my master degree, you can see video at YouTube (search for Homebrew Steer-by-Wire).

Please do not delete the article. The editor actually does not understand the nature of the RTOS. He may have actually seen it at work in any electronic apparatus he owns and not even realize that it is there. Some companies use it, and even encourage people to add or remove features from it. How better to know what the OS is by visiting these pages, before visiting the location where the source code lives, which can be supplied in references, which are verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorwho8 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please Don't Delete NuttX is a free open source RTOS, yes there might be a number of RTOSes out there, but that doesn't make NuttX Non-Notable, or worthless of Wikipedia page. Yes NuttX have a small but still an Active community. It can the group is always friendly for embedded systems novice, and it is a great way to learn about RTOS. Plus it comes with it buildroot kit, which makes it relatively independent of other commercial toolkit that comes with much of the other RTOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.15.253 (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)  — 65.213.15.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment If you are aware of any academic papers describing projects using NuttX, or if you know any press reports on NuttX (including reports in the electronics trade press and technology news websites), please post links. Wikipedia relies on published information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Colapeninsula, the article references and external links point to projects using NuttX. Also, several of our embedded projects at Micromint use NuttX. We have been in the embedded systems market since 1979. I would like to ask you two questions:

1. What is your background with embedded systems that allows you to properly evaluate the "notability" of this project?

2. Are you imposing the same "notability" criteria to the 38 Wikipedia RTOS articles listed above (BeRTOS CapROS ChorusOS ...)? NuttX has much more functionality and has much more active development than any of those. MicromintUSA (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. To answer MicromintUSA's questions above, although they weren't directed at me:


 * (1): The entire point of an article on Wikipedia is that it is accessible and understandable to readers that have no prior knowledge of the subject. This also means that someone that has no prior knowledge of the article's subject can read the content, assess the references, and easily see for themselves that the article is notable.  If a reader cannot do this, then it is not the fault of the reader for not being able to "properly evaluate" the article; the fault is with the article for failing to demonstrate its notability.
 * (2): WP:OTHERSTUFF. The notability of another article is a discussion for another article, it has no bearing on this article.  Lack of notability on another article does not negate this article's lack of notability.


 * The Linux Journal article is the only thing in the article that helps establish any kind of notability, and articles require multiple reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of an article's subject, three paragraphs in Linux Journal by itself does not give the article sufficient notability. - SudoGhost 18:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - SudoGhost, I respectfully disagree with your response to (1). You are mixing the role of a reader and an editor. In a traditional publication a reader is usually not an expert on the topic he/she is reading about. Yet an editor should be. When editors cover fields in which they have little or no knowledge, the quality and relevance of publications can do down dramatically. An example would be having someone that has never played baseball, that has never been in a baseball game and that has no interest in baseball become the editor for the baseball section of a publication. Regarding your response to (2), applying different criteria is certainly arbitrary and possibly unfair. If editors applied different criteria to 38 (THIRTY EIGHT) other articles in the RTOS topic, something is very broken in the editing process. MicromintUSA (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia mixes the role of reader and editor, not I. This is not a "traditional publication", and if the article cannot demonstrate the notability of its subject then this shows that the article is not notable, not that the reader just doesn't understand it.  Your statement is based on editing an article an editor has no prior knowledge of, and that's not what I'm talking about.  Anyone should be able to look at an article and the sources supporting it and determine if it is notable or not.  The difference is that notability is not about what an editor knows, but what reliable sources show.  The reliable sources in the article do not show notability. As for (2), no "different criteria" is being applied.  If you have an issue with the notability of the other articles, discuss them at the talk pages of the different articles, but this discussion is about NuttX RTOS and its notability.  Other articles lacking notability does not merit keeping an article that has no notability. - SudoGhost 20:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SudoGhost, you placed a COI tag on the article that states A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. What is your basis for this? If you are referring to me, I am not a NuttX developer nor do I have a direct connection to the NuttX project. If you are referring to my using the software, that is definitively not a close connection. If you have no evidence and made the tag based on pure speculation, please remove the tag. MicromintUSA (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You were not the editor that concerned me, this discussion board shows what I'm referring to, and it looks like all of the non-IP "please do not delete" comments come from usernames that are also in use on that discussion board. - SudoGhost 20:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That discussion board is the NuttX forum. Users post questions about the RTOS there. Posting on the forum does not imply a close connection with the the subject or its creator. If there is other evidence, please state it. Otherwise the COI should be removed immediately. MicromintUSA (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please Don't Delete - Someone with basic experience with embedded systems should be able to see that NuttX is one of the top open source RTOS alternatives. My direct experience in this field covers several decades. The article states multiple references and external links to projects using NuttX in production applications. Censoring NuttX out of Wikipedia would be a great disservice to this field and would prevent developers working with microcontroller applications from access to valuable information. It is just not right to have people that have no interest or knowledge in this field do this censoring. MicromintUSA (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please Don't Delete In my opinion the NuttX RTOS article should not be deleted. NuttX was first released on 2007 and the making of an embedded real-time operating system is nothing that happens in days, or months, it takes years. Gregory Nutt has made an unprecedented effort to make a high quality open source RTOS that has gained a lot of support from the -specialised embedded software- open source community as each year passes by, as well as acceptance in the embedded software industry in general. I know right now there are not so many references to how NuttX has been used throughout the world, but this is mostly because most of the ways that the NuttX RTOS is used are in proprietary projects by companies around the world, many of them in China, that are not interested in sharing the insides of their products' internals. This article has improved a lot in Notability in one day, and like other people have noted in this chat, unfortunately it is much better than other RTOS pages already. Right now, we know that several PhD students are using NuttX in their thesis projects and that will start adding to notability, when their documents get to the web; in Costa Rica, in matter of months 2 Electronic Engineering undergraduates are presenting their projects based on NuttX, from the Costa_Rica_Institute_of_Technology. Also, the creator of NuttX is an industry expert with over 30 years in the embedded software industry, and to add to this encyclopedic effort that is creating an article at Wikipedia, he is brother to Gary Nutt who is a well-known author and creator of the -related to this article- "Operating Systems" book (Operating Systems, 3rd edition by Gary Nutt). This is a family of experts. This article will continue to gain notability in a short period of time, including that the NuttX community is very aware for this need, and they see as well that the Wikipedia article will help new-to-NuttX engineers to get started, and hopefully, eventually become part of the open source community and contribute to it, in the similar spirit as Wikipedia gets contributions. A bio page for Gregory Nutt is also in plan and will be added soon, with more references to his participation in the academic world in the past years at Costa Rica, in example at the Embedded Technology Conference in this country as a lecturer and as sponsor using his company (NX-Engineering), as well as mentoring students for their graduation projects. I want to thank the editors for keeping the high standards on this page. Jpcarballo (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Jpcarballo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * To say that the article is not currently notable does not mean that it never will be notable, only that it isn't notable right now, and we cannot assume that it will become notable, we have to wait until it actually is notable. - SudoGhost 02:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just to clarify something said here, this discussion is not exactly about "collecting opinions" about NuttX RTOS, but rather how it does or does not meet the notability guidelines. As it says above the editing window, valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements.  Wikipedia has specific guidelines such as WP:N and WP:GNG for determining the notability of each and every article, and if you want the article kept then the best way to do that is to look for references that can help satisfy WP:GNG at the minimum; giving your opinion of how great the software is isn't really going to help. - SudoGhost 03:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * SudoGhost, you need to start being more specific, I'm reading your links WP:N and WP:GNG and I believe this article meets the points. The General Notability Guideline says: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We have added reliable sources that are independent to the subject (if you disagree please mention which you consider not reliable). We have added links like the main NuttX site that is "the piece of work itself", so you have the reliable source there for a start. Second, the features and other technical titles in the Article comes from "the piece of work itself" (NuttX site), by either documentation that is written by "the creator of the work", Gregory Nutt, or the features of the source code itself, again "the piece of work itself". So that is one reliable source you can take. You need to point out what is written that does not come from a reliable source.


 * I think the mere point of this discussion is the title "Notability requires verifiable evidence" from the WP:GNG page: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". Hence this article is being challenged, but we already worked on some of the points mentioned there and in WP:RS improving the article. This is a long-term project since 2007 and currently active, and it is very clear that the article is not "promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity" and I think we gathered evidence of 'notability-indicating sources'. Please read: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." My previous comment was not about how great is NuttX at all, but an indication for the editors to detect that possibility of notability-indicating sources. I was also trying to put the editors into context ("Context makes a difference") indicating how this is an original work that has been gathering momentum for years now, and that the very specific 'reliable sources' you are looking right now are just not possible (i.e. a book) at this moment, meaning not that this article is not notable. Jpcarballo (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I stated above specifically why it did not meet the criteria, and that only one reference showed any notability, however it's not fair to say the others do not show notability without saying why, so I'll go through each reference. As of this revision (1) Conveys some notability, but articles require multiple reliable sources. (2) is a blog, does not help establish notability.  (3) is a portal for a youtube video which does not establish notability (4) is a wiki, which like Wikipedia, is not a reliable source per WP:SPS (5) appears to be a host/mirror for NuttX, not independent of the article's subject (6) is also a wiki (7) uses the software; is not independent (8) WP:SPS (9) Does not convey any notability; I'd actually suggest it shows otherwise, only three people total said they had ever used it (10)(11)(12) all WP:SPS and appear to be non-independent of the article's subject (13) is user-submitted content, not a reliable source (14) is WP:SPS, and is a primary source.


 * Of all 14 references, only one demonstrates any measure of notability from reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the article's subject. A single reliable source does not establish the notability required to satisfy the requirement of the general notability guideline. - SudoGhost 05:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't loose my time on this anymore. Thanks all for your effort. Jpcarballo (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is truly a waste of time. These Wikipedia censors definitively have no clue of the subject. Are Wikipedia censors required to pass a "notability" test? What are the credentials and "notability" of Ridernyc and SudoGhost that gives them the power to censor an RTOS article? It is likely they won't disclose their credentials or submit to the same scrutiny that they are applying to this article. Besides the Linux Journal, the article references include multiple documented projects that serve as irrefutable evidence of the use of NuttX in practical applications. There is no question about the veracity of any information in the article or its relevancy to the RTOS field. It is likely these censors have never achieved anything of the stature of NuttX and have no clue of what it entails. Unlike judges or censors in the real world, these Wikipedia censors hide behind a virtual alias that hides their credentials and does not allow vetting. Their censorship gives them the power to attack achievers using the alias as a mask, something they can't do in the real world. Rather than promoting the exchange of information they are serving as deterrents. The end result of their baseless censorship is that embedded developers will not be able to get that information through Wikipedia. In my 30 years in the computer industry I have never seen such a retrograde attitude as shown by these Wikipedia censors. The argument that people censoring the articles don't need any knowledge of the field is ludicrous and shows blatant disregard for common sense. History shows that giving power to people that don't have the knowledge is dangerous. 69.89.45.1 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles, regardless of content, require multiple third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject, in order to deal with the subject with due weight and to properly ensure that it is written in a neutral manner. It is not "censorship" to point out that this article is lacking these kinds of sources, because if the article had more third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject it would then negate what I said about it lacking these.  If this is your definition of censorship then you are more fortunate than you'll ever know.  However, instead of improving the article or providing the sources the article needs, you instead resort to ad hominem attacks against editors that point out that it doesn't meet WP:GNG.  In attacking those that disagree with you instead of addressing the actual notability concerns that were discussed, you have shown the merits of your comment. - SudoGhost 17:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please Don't Delete Nuttx is a bit like linux(features wise and driver model wise) but for microcontrollers, it even has a shell(the nsh shell). I use it because I'm porting it to OsmocomBB compatibles phones in order to make theses phones usable without a computer. Altough there are some computer science related articles that should be deleted or improved,likes the one on foobar's android distributions where people takes wikipedia as their project wiki, here it's not the case, so I propose to keep the article, I really don't understand why many good free software project wikipedia articles are flagged for deletions when they should not. GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 17:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any references that would help with the notability? It's not a matter of not understanding what NuttX is, or it not being "good free software", the issue is that it fails WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 17:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SudoGhost, the NuttX article does meet WP:GNG. Using the definition of "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" there is "significant coverage" in references (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8). All projects listed would not work without NuttX. The veracity of none of the sources is in question so they meet the definition of "reliable" as "sources with editorial integrity". Sources are secondary, "independent of the subject" and "not affiliated with the subject or its creator". As per WP:GNG "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia". The fact you only accept the Linux Journal as valid and disregard most of the references is your opinion and that of a few others that have no significant knowledge of the field covered by the article. The vast majority of people with RTOS experience clearly disagree with you and the few others that concur with you. We assess NuttX as notable and the references as reliable and independent. As you well know, consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. Given your arguments, it appears impossible you will change your vote. Yet the assessment of readers with in depth knowledge of this topic needs to carry more weight. Deleting this article would be wrong. MicromintUSA (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming for a moment that I've never heard of this newfangled "embedded" RTOS, an editor's knowledge of the topic has no bearing on an article's ability to demonstrate notability. If an editor cannot look at an article and the references provided and see that it is notable, then the failure is the article's, not the editor's.  I've explained why the other references do not convey notability, notability is established by reliable third-party sources that are independent of the article's subject.  Not reliable sources that aren't independent, and not independent sources that aren't reliable.  It has to be both independent and reliable, not one of the two.  Of all the references in the article, the Linux Journal reference is the only one that is both independent and reliable, and I explained in detail why each and every other reference fails to contribute to the notability of the subject.
 * If by "in-depth knowledge" you mean the only editors that have made any comment towards keeping the article were canvassed from the NuttX discussion board, then no it does not and should not carry more weight that editors that were asked to come here specifically to !vote to keep the article, who predisposed towards the article's subject think it should be kept without actually establishing or showing notability. These editors, yourself included, did not judge the article on its merits and assess the notability without a predisposed opinion on whether to keep or delete the article based on the references provided, you asked them to come here and !vote keep.  Notability has to be demonstrated, not known beforehand.  I have no doubt that people that use NuttX think it's notable, but it has to be demonstrated with sources that are both independent and reliable, and this article has failed to do that. - SudoGhost 20:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You accused me on your talk page of having a close connection with NuttX because our controllers run NuttX. That is absolutely ridiculous and representative of your flawed logic. Our controllers use ARM processors and also run Linux. That does not imply we have a close connection to Linux nor do we have a vested interest in the Linux Foundation. The same goes with all other operating systems that work with ARM processors and run on our controllers. According to the ARM article in Wikipedia in 2011 there were over 15 billion ARM processors in devices all over the world so there are many many operating systems running on them that would also run on our controllers. You crossed the line by making baseless accusations. I demand that you immediately stop these false accusations made without any evidence whatsoever. MicromintUSA (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * and I have responded on my talk page. - SudoGhost 22:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You responded with yet another flawed argument that could even be regarded as an attempt to thwart free expression. Yearly I post in over a dozen forums. I have a right to an opinion on any topic whatsoever. That does not imply a close connection to a topic. You have absolutely no authority to block my right to free speech. MicromintUSA (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SudoGhost, where can we see your credentials and a list of articles you have edited in Wikipedia? We have the right to do the same vetting on you than you are making on us. Hiding behind an alias to make flawed arguments and false accusations goes against basic fairness principles. I already posted my credentials on a previous response. MicromintUSA (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no point copying the same thing on my talk page and here, anyone is welcome to see my talk page's contents. My contributions are equally accessible by anyone.  However, short of addressing the deletion rationale editors have expressed, accusing editors of "hiding" behind a pseudonym and other equally irrelevant things isn't going to convince anyone to keep the article.  An article stands on its own merits, not those of editors.  It is up to the article to demonstrate its own notability, if only those that have "credentials" think it's notable without being able to demonstrate this, that's a fairly resounding indication that the subject is not notable. - SudoGhost 22:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You do not have a right, only a privilege, to free speech on Wikipedia, per WP:FREESPEECH.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't understand the argument. I have a right to comment on any topic on any discussion forum without having someone accuse me of a close connection to a topic. I have the right to use any software whatsoever without having someone accuse me of a close connection with its author. Commenting on a topic or using software does not imply a close connection. Using gas on your car does not imply you have a close connection to the oil industry. MicromintUSA (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No you don't. You do not have a right to comment, and you do not have a right to not receive a valid counter-argument. This does imply a close connection. We frown when you canvass other editors to try to support your position on this site. All that matters is that to the Wikipedia community, it does imply a connection of some sort, and therefore, our concerns are valid.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have as much right to comment as you do. There is absolutely no question of the veracity of the information listed in the article. It is not right when people without any background in the field censor information such that it is not accessible to interested parties via Wikipedia. It is even worse when the censors hide behind an alias and can't be submitted to the same vetting process we are being submitted to.
 * SudoGhost is neutral on this subject, and I realize there are many RTOS's. All editors must submit themselves to this kind of process before they comment; even I must be careful when I comment on discussions like this for Linux or Windows articles. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, yet it cannot include everything, so we have certain standards you need to meet. We find that you did not meet those standards, plain and simple.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're going with this "gas in the car" analogy, then use it correctly. You aren't "putting gas in your car", you're selling a car that can use a special kind of gas, and naming that brand of gas specifically as a selling point for your car. Because this special gas has no article, you created one, because why would it help sell your product if nobody knows what the special gas even is?  When it was brought up that the gas may not be notable, you got in touch with the people that made the gas, asking them to vouch for its notability.  That's not just "putting gas in your car".  That is why you have the appearance of a conflict of interest. - SudoGhost 02:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet another flawed argument. This hypothetical gas (NuttX RTOS) works on any popular hypothetical engine (microcontroller) so it is not a competitive advantage for any hypothetical car (controller) vendor. It is amazing how misguided Wikipedia censors can be. This article was written in the interest of providing information on this outstanding RTOS alternative. We make absolutely zero revenue out of NuttX and it does not give us a competitive advantage nor does it help us in any sales effort. There are many other free open source RTOS that support ARM microcontrollers and developers can use on our ARM-based controllers. This includes several listed in Wikipedia articles that evidently didn't go through the vetting that your are imposing in this case. Your hypothetical conflict of interest is just that, hypothetical. MicromintUSA (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no flaw here, you are specifically using this article's subject as a selling point for your products, it doesn't matter what else it runs on, you are using it as a marketing tool, and providing it with your hardware, therefore it is potentially beneficial for your company if this article existed, and therein lies the potential for a conflict of interest. Nobody said that this is certainly why you created the article, but these facts create the appearance of a conflict of interest, the key word there is appearance. To refer to me as a "censor" for pointing this out is mindbogglingly inaccurate. If you want your article kept, address the issues of notability; continuing to personally attack editors that disagree with you will not suddenly cause anyone to see the truth and take back their assessment that the article is not notable. If anything, attacking others instead of addressing the content of the article is just going to end with you being blocked from editing, and because you are editing under your company's name, throwing personal attacks around reflects very poorly on your company, especially since Wikipedia articles (including this AfD) are shown through search engines such as Google. - SudoGhost 03:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me see recapitulate. There is no question of the veracity of the article or its relevance to embedded system developers, yet its content is edited by people that acknowledge having little or no background in the field and that also threat with suppressing it totally. Multiple references of active use of NuttX in practical embedded applications are totally disregarded. A report is made of close to 40 other Wikipedia articles in the same field that are much less "notable", but nothing is done about it. Votes and testimony from fellow NuttX users is suppressed and they are demeaningly referred to as puppets. I am reprimanded for requesting their participation. After 30+ years in the computer industry with a spotless technical and business record, my integrity is questioned by people using an alias that decline to state their credentials. Even though most people outside of Wikipedia would call this censorship, I am threatened with being blocked for referring to it as such. Well, I no longer live in a communist regime and will not kneel against oppression. If you feel I have violated your policies, please take whatever action you deem appropriate. Also, you are well aware that no additional references meeting your criteria will be viable in the 7 day discussion period. Please stop our misery and just pull the trigger. JAlvarez (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article has multiple reliable sources that show notability per Wikipedia's guidelines, it would be kept. It does not meet Wikipedia's criteria, and so does not belong on Wikipedia.  This is "censorship"?  If this is your definition of "censorship", then you are an extremely fortunate individual to not know what censorship truly is.  If I wrote a package and asked to add it to a repository, and the repository maintainers saw that it did not meet their criteria and did not add it to their repository, or removed a package that no longer meets their criteria, is this censorship?  No, and it is nothing short of absurd to claim otherwise.  You said that "There is no question of... its relevance to embedded system developers", but this is the point you seem to be missing, this is not "Embeddedpedia"; that NuttX is relevant to NuttX developers means absolutely nothing in terms of its relevance to anyone else, and notability is the tool that is used to determine this.  This article does not have that notability, and therefore does not meet the criteria required for a Wikipedia article. - SudoGhost 22:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact you have little or no knowledge of the RTOS field, and evidently have no interest in it, does not mean the topic is not important to thousands of embedded system developers. Wikipedia of course is not "Embeddedpedia" (your term, not mine). Yet embedded systems is an important topic in Wikipedia. A simple search of wikipedia.org produces over ten thousand article references. It is not one of the top topics but certainly has an important following and should not be disregarded or demeaned. I still contend that most people outside of Wikipedia would look at all the points raised here (including the suppression of valid feedback, demeaning other users as puppets, disregarding valid references, allowing dozens of less notable articles, selectively repressing participation requests, making false allegations of conflict of interest, etc.) and classify them as censorship. Many of those actions would not be allowed in reputable real world publications, where people are subject to scrutiny and can't hide behind an alias. JAlvarez (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You do not know my knowledge, and at any rate it does not matter. Any article, on any subject, must be able to demonstrate notability, so that anyone can see it is notable.  This article does not do this.  By making wildly misconstrued claims of "censorship" instead of addressing the issues raised, you're showing that this article is in fact not notable.  We can already see what would be allowed in real world publications, since this article is lacking in the notability given by such publications.  If you have something to address concerning the article, then do so, but calling editors "censors" and accusing editors of "hiding" needs to stop.  Comment on the content, not the contributor.  Address the notability of the article, don't attack others in an attempt to minimize their comments. - SudoGhost 23:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please Don't Delete Por favor não deletem o NuttX_RTOS. Este sistema é muito bem feito . é utilizado em diversos projetos e por sua compatibilidade com POSIX serve como excelente referencia para estudantes de sistemas, profissionais da area de sistemas operacionais embarcados. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.246.34 (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: (Note that I am ignoring the blatant meatpuppetry that's occuring above) - I do not at all care about the merits of this OS, and Wikipedia does not either when considering its notability. A Google search leads very few third-party reliable sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Jasper Deng. Notability must be corroborated by many reliable sources, not few. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 03:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - First of all, I'm sorry if editors interpreted my questioning as a personal attack on them. Discussions between people with strong convictions can get somewhat heated at times. My opinions tend to be strong in areas related to the field I have enjoyed working in during most of my career. In my talk page I agreed to limit the scope of my questioning to the subject matter in respect to Wikipedia rules and in consideration to highly committed editors, such as SudoGhost. Although it is evident we disagree in several issues, I do recognize SudoGhost's commitment to maintaining high quality of information at Wikipedia. His arguments are carefully prepared with detailed references and thoughtful use of the language. JAlvarez (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Questions - Now going back to article issues, the consensus among editors seems to be that the Linux Journal reference is reliable but that references from applications using NuttX are not. How many additional reliable references would be required to satisfy the requirement of notability? How much time we have to find them until a final decision is made on the AfD? Regarding the CoI concern, would removing the reference to Micromint controllers cure that? My intent there was to show that NuttX has been deployed production applications with commercially available controllers, reducing concerns about it being unstable or too fragile for commercial applications. There is absolutely no interest to direct Wikipedia readers to Micromint. As far as it being closely tied to our our ARM controllers, that is certainly not the case. The Wikipedia list includes 64 RTOS that support ARM microcontrollers. Most could be used with our controllers so there is no real advantage. We do like the NuttX functionality and believe it is one of the best RTOS for embedded work, but work with several others. JAlvarez (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On COI, that doesn't matter - it's the point of view of the article. I'd probably require something like 5 reliable sources, depending on their quality and reputability. If your intent was to show its amount of uses, that does not show notability unless people note the OS for that; you have until exactly one week after the discussion's beginning (until 03:38 24 May 2012) to do this, and even so, you may not be able to convince the !voters in time. But, thanks for acknowleding that you do have a conflict of interest and that you are trying to keep it under control.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications, Jasper Deng. Even if it doesn't matter for CoI, I decided to remove the Micromint reference anyway to avoid misunderstandings in that respect. JAlvarez (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also a note to add, yes there are many other articles on RTOS's on Wikipedia. I spent part of the day yesterday looking at many of them, and as far as I'm concerned the vast majority of the ones that I looked at also do not belong on Wikipedia. Ridernyc (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ridernyc. Cleaning up the RTOS list would definitively improve the quality of the Wikipedia coverage in this field. I can't talk for the other microcontroller targets, but for the ARM there are certainly too many. I counted 64 ARM RTOS entries earlier this week. Probably 20 or 25% of those cover over 95% of all installations. JAlvarez (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to suggest that if a clean up is done it should be done properly. In the OS (or RTOS) section there are indeed a number of different ones listed (whether too many or too few is another subject) and a large percentage (easily visible by checking through some random ones) unquestionably do not fulful notability requirements (in present state) according to the Wikipedia definitions - this is valid for various less well known ones as well as for some "well known" ones. The present clean up is restricted to a very few chosen from the list and not necessarily the 'worst' ones in terms of content and justifiability of being present in Wikipedia. (Hyperthetical) If Windows 95 were listed without any references to notability would Windows 95 not be notable and so the article deleted? Presumably the article should indeed be deleted or, more constructive, improved to fulfil the shortcoming. Possibly the following should be done here - list all (rather than just a small random selection) that are questionable. This would be much more productive and positive: it would not give the impression that some one is "picking on" a couple out of the list (this is probably one of the reasons that make so many rather hot under the collar since they know very well that they have put in effort (whether meeting the requirements at the time or not) and still see a lot of other articles in their same area of interest that have been added without any effort (there are a number of 5..10 line entries with a single link to their web server, that's it). If all were questioned together it would show that this is a general issue and not a random attack. This would in turn make it clear that all are in the same boat and all should be attempting to meet the requirements or should be deleted until they can do so - no hard feelings and every entry handled fairly and objectively. Goal clearly to improve quality and everyone given a fair chance to make these improvements where possible. mjbcswitzerland (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.193.177 (talk)
 * Comment Added some references to the author behind NuttX (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NuttX_RTOS&oldid=493558769), as per Jasper Deng's recommendation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jasper_Deng) to write about who develops it. I will be adding more information about the OS architecture in the next days, as right now I am very busy. I ask you to please review the "Current Development" section to check my changes and bring back any comments, and if this edit added notability. Thank you. Jpcarballo (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jpcarballo. That is useful information. You may consider revising some references that appear twice (19/20, 22/23, 30/31). I understand Lorenz Meier and Alan Carvalho de Assis did thesis projects using NuttX in Switzerland and Brazil. I was looking for links to their thesis documents but could not find them. If you have links to those and they note the use of NuttX please add those too. JAlvarez (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added a reference to Alan Carvalho de Assis dissertation, which references NuttX as the underlying real-time operating system in the solution. Jpcarballo (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability Anaylisis Hi, I noticed that a lot of the body of the Article was removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NuttX_RTOS&oldid=493751329) leaving in the Article pretty much only what I have written, I guess that makes me a main contributor. This is a good thing, because all of these Editing sessions have been very about the contributors getting to know Wikipedia's policies and rules. I was one that got surprised that an article about NuttX was being deleted, and signed up at Wikipedia and came here to see in what could I help, please note the inexperience. The time is almost gone to demonstrate the article's notability, and I don't have that much of time to dedicate as much to this article as I would like, so I think it is time for my final notability analysis for this AfD, so that Wikipedia editors can determine if it pass or not.

These are the references that I think make this article notable, as of this revision (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NuttX_RTOS&oldid=493777587):

1) NuttX Archive at SourceForge: According to WP:IRS, this link is the 'piece of work itself', as it points to the NuttX source code archives.

2) Non-Linux FOSS at Linux Journal: As per the discussion above, this reference to the LinuxJournal has been determined (as the only) notable source by several editors. No need to discuss on this one more.

4) NuttShell documentation: I see this as also 'part of the work itself', software comes with documentation, this is part of NuttX documentation.

5) Master dissertation by Alan Carvalho de Assis: Formal academic reference. The work is not available on the web, but I have read it as Alan sent it to me (too bad I don't understand much Portuguese). Note that according to WP:GNG sources are not required to be in English.

8) NuttX in Isotel NetClamps sensor networks: This is one I picked up from 6) to 11), to note that even you could argue that they are not reliable, they are 'independent secondary sources' WP:ORG. If they are 'trivial' or 'incidental', well that is subject to discussion. I believe such debate inevitably would fall in the technical ground: using a real-time operating system is something specialized, finding a reference to a secondary source that has used NuttX to support its main products does not sound trivial in my opinion.

17) Introduction to NuttX: This one relates to 18), 19) and 20). It is an academic reference that supports NuttX exposure in the Embedded Technology Conference 2011, a national event held in Costa Rica. Newspapers brings evidence of this event and NuttX exposure.

These are my arguments, please note that I have taken a lot of my personal time through this week, and that I do this in good faith. I would like to ask to focus this discussion on Notability, as this article could have a lot more technical merit in the future as it evolves (with all the training that I have been through with you), since it is impossible to describe an OS in one week.

I also want to appeal to your consideration of this idea from WP:N: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." Regarding this I have expressed myself before in this talk about this notability-indicating sources (mostly graduation projects based on NuttX that I am aware of), but I acknowledge that (from WP:N) "...once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.". I think I have not only asserted, but brought through this week two specific sources: Alan Carvalho de Assis dissertation and references to NuttX in the Embedded Technology Conference at the University of Costa Rica, 2011.

About the CoI issue, I believe it doesn't fit anymore, since the contributor in conflict has expressed his interested in leaving himself out of the editing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JAlvarez#NuttX_RTOS_concerns), plus his contributions were mostly erased ((http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NuttX_RTOS&oldid=493777587)). Thank you for your time. Jpcarballo (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks independent, reliable, sources. If it's so great, someone outside of it's biggest fans must have written about it somewhere. &mdash;Al E.(talk) 17:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "If it's so great, someone outside of it's biggest fans must have written about it somewhere." That is an unnecessary comment, and probably is what is so uncomfortable about this AfD. I'm going to try not to take this personal as I am one of the persons who wrote about NuttX here. It is disappointing to feel that Wikipedia editors are biased or emotional when they make these decisions. It would be polite if you are specific about the sources written in the article, one by one, and tell why they are not notable, at least the ones I specified in my notability analysis. SudoGhost did that above, he has proven to be a very professional editor in this difficult conversation. Jpcarballo (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel it was a personal attack. It wasn't. I struck my extraneous comment. &mdash;Al E.(talk) 18:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article has been reworked since I commented, so I wanted to comment again in light of the current version. Unfortunately I've looked at the references that were added, and I don't see any that are both independent of the subject and considered a reliable source, so right now I'd have to stick with my original opinion that the article is not sufficiently notable to be an article right now. That's not to say that when NuttX gains more recognition that an article cannot be created, but from the sources given and from what I found online, I don't think it currently meets any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. - SudoGhost 03:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Section Break
Why is there now an RFC tacked to the top of this AFD? Ridernyc (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't as I've removed it. The AfD is a site-wide notice it doesn't need another. There may be a lag before the pages that report RfCs catch up.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a question and thought of using the RfC functionality, it was not appropriate as JohnBlackburne was saying to me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jpcarballo#RfC_at_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FNuttX_RTOS). Ridernyc, could you please answer to my last notability analysis? Jpcarballo (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Still don't see any coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Ridernyc (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jpcarballo (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.