Peterkimrowe
A tag has been placed on RoweBots, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Unison RTOS edit
Writing 101, which I learned in elementary school: write as if the reader has no idea what you are talking about. In this case, I truly don't and others must agree with me since someone already tagged it with an insufficient context tag. Can you tell us a bit more about the subject so those of us that don't know about the previous three versions have a clue as to what it is? Thanks!Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
RESPONSE
There is a clear problem in the wikipedia system here in that people who are not knowledgeable expect an article to start from first principles and explain everything as this poster does. At the same time, other guidelines require specific facts that can identify the unique aspects and historical significance of the work that was done. You can't have it both ways. I suggest a thorough review of the guidelines and a repair of them before any more changes are made to any articles. 99.235.235.207 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)kim rowe
Proposed deletion of RoweBots edit
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article RoweBots, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- No evidence of notability
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. J.delanoygabsadds 02:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
RESPONSE
For those that are ignorant of the development and historical evolution then the existence of the Unison Operating System and RoweBots as a company then it may seem as it has no place. Those who understand these issues and evolution of the market would conceed that Unison was the first company to offer many significant new features: - first commercial posix RTOS - first commercial heterogeneous multiprocessor (or multicore if you prefer) RTOS - first commercial heterogenous multiprocessor cross development environment with IDE (Remedy, Compose combo) - first commercial RTOS simulator (CopyCat) - first commercial thread based RTOS 99.235.235.207 (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC) kim rowe
Nomination of Unison Operating System for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Unison Operating System is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unison Operating System until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
RESPONSE
For those that are ignorant of the development and historical evolution then the existence of the Unison Operating System and RoweBots as a company then it may seem as it has no place. Those who understand these issues and evolution of the market would conceed that Unison was the first company to offer many significant new features: - first commercial posix RTOS - first commercial heterogeneous multiprocessor (or multicore if you prefer) RTOS - first commercial heterogenous multiprocessor cross development environment with IDE (Remedy, Compose combo) - first commercial RTOS simulator (CopyCat) - first commercial thread based RTOS 99.235.235.207 (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)kim rowe
Status and Advice edit
The new article you wrote on this does not meet the objections and the AfD , and I deleted it accordingly. A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. If you have such sources, it may be possible to rewrite the article; otherwise, it will not be possible to write an acceptable article. If for some reason nothing has been published, there just is no basis for the reader to be able to verify the information (see WP:V, and there can not be an article, regardless of intrinsic importance. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I note that this deletion is completely arbitrary. Is their some sort of policing group that can rid this site of people who make these arbitrary decisions? It is clear that DGG is either not knowledgeable or uneducated in this area or both. There is dozens of other much less supported articles in this same section. Organizations publishing information on RoweBots and Unison include: ARM, Texas Instruments, Fujitsu, Renesas, ST Microelectronics, NXP, RTC Group, UBM, IEEE, and many others. The links are there. There has been 50 or more published articles and 10 videos on Unison and RoweBots in the past 7 years. Did you do any homework on this DDG? Peterkimrowe (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RoweBots is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoweBots until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RoweBots is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoweBots (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ammarpad (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)