Deletion of SafeRTOS

Comment: to FreeRTOS: formally, we need ''multiple'' independent reliable sources on topic per . As the note in the guideline explains, several articles by the same publisher (EETimes) count per one source, as well as preprints (Embedded Systems Design Europe reprints http://www.eetimes.com/design/embedded/4007228/How-to-verify-your-compiler-for-use-in-IEC-61508-safety-critical-applications EETimes' article) are not separate sources. Furthermore, the EETimes' articles are specifically problematic, as http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4136847/SOFTWARE-TOOLS-Design-Assurance-Pack-simplifies-medical-certification one of them is a |press release, http://www.eetimes.com/design/embedded/4007228/How-to-verify-your-compiler-for-use-in-IEC-61508-safety-critical-applications another is |written by WITTENSTEIN's employee and only uses SafeRTOS as example and http://www.eetimes.com/electrical-engineers/education-training/webinars/4214387/2011-Embedded-Market-Study third one seems |neither enough detailed nor focused on the nomination's subject (though I can't bet on this, as it |costs some money I'm not willing to invest into this deletion discussion). Other sources for subject are yet less independent. All of this suggests that the subject is far from being notable. Still, as the article explains, the subject is closely related to FreeRTOS, so it can be described there without bloating the article. —&nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PRODUCT||WP:PRIMARY||WP:PRIMARY||WP:NSOFT||WP:PAYWALL)