PikeOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

fails notability guidelines, see specifically WP:PRODUCT. a WP:BEFORE failed to return significant coverage in reliable sources. note: was previously prodded by me before being deprodded here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't find any independent in-depth sources on PikeOS. There are some academic sources, but most are from the company/employees of the company. A significant portion of the article reads like promotion for SYSGO as well/a good portion of the article was written by User:Sysgo. With a lack of sources + promotional material I think it should go. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The abstract of this paper^[1] by Sino-German College, Tongji University & FAW Group says: [...] designs an RTOS and Linux system suitable for the PikeOS Hypervisor; designs communication programs and verification methods between RTOS partitions and Linux partitions on the PikeOS Hypervisor; designs a test program for the real-time performance of PikeOS; and verifies the feasibility of the design scheme by running it on the Xilinx ZCU 104 single-chip microcomputer. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That someone used a commercial product in their research does not make it automatically notable. There are definitely other academic sources out there (e.g. [1]) but many are written by employees of sysgo making them non-independent. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is wide coverage in academic sources (conference and journal papers, books). As far as I can tell, quite a few of them are independent [2][3][4]. --MarioGom (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]