Deletion of PatientOS

Comment: per the |general notability guideline for lack of |significant coverage in |reliable sources. The single paragraph in the cambridge report and passing mentions do not satisfy this. If this is an important piece of software, someone will eventually write about it, in detail, in a trade publication or book
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS)

Comment: Lack of coverage in |reliable sources, fails our inclusion guidelines, if others think they should be changes, this is not the place to do that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: no sign of meeting . Editor has been putting forth other wikis and copies of press releases as reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSOFT)

Comment: The discussion here is not about the merits of PatientOS.  It could be the best system out there, or it could be a complete turd.  It doesn't matter.  What matters is if it meets Wikipedia's |inclusion guidelines which is usually referred to as "notability".  This would be established by significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  I am in agreement with Nat Gertler's assessment of the current sourcing.  I'll add that my own searches for better sourcing have not turned up any significant coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)