Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTMOS (Real-Time Multiprogramming Operating System)

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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RTMOS (Real-Time Multiprogramming Operating System)

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

Not much more than a dictionary definition. No example of a RTMOS is given, and the term's significance is unclear. Unsourced and orphaned for some years now. GregorB (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ please. Not even a coherent title with acronym followed by Upper Case etc. Just a combination of two adjectives on a noun, no separate topic here. Embarrassing that it took five years. W Nowicki (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was an operating system created by General Electric in the late 1960's. There is some info about it in the 1972 article The structure and comparison of three real-time operating systems for process control and the 1974 article about the GEPAC 4000 RTMOS Measurement and Improvement of Memory Allocation in a Process Computer I've found mentions in various other sources. But online references for an old OS like this are sparse. At this point, I think these two articles are sufficient, albeit marginally sufficient, to satisfy the notability requirements for multiple in-depth reliable sources. --Mark viking (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is interesting - reading the initial version of the article, I was under the impression that "RTMOS" is a generic term, and not a particular OS. The article (and its title) could be still be tweaked a bit to fully reflect that. I'll take a closer look shortly. GregorB (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: perhaps the article were renamed RTMOS (operating system)? As for whether to keep this, it seems that this is borderline notable. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or perhaps just RTMOS (like e.g. DOS)... I agree, could still be borderline notable, as it seems to be possible to extract at least some basic information about it. GregorB (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mark viking's finds. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RECENT AND Mark viking's finds. ~KvnG 21:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sure, if you are going to re-purpose the article (I could not find any mention of GE in earlier versions) then I would vote to move to Real-Time Multiprogramming Operating System since at least the one source that mentions it in the abstract spells the name out first, so the title rule of avoiding acronyms would apply. For precedent from that era see General Comprehensive Operating System often known as GECOS. And of course use past tense, mention the decade for context, and the brand of the computer on which it ran please. ... A little more digging, yields a snippet that implies the name is from 1967, and before that, it was just called "the monitor". It says it ran at 200 sites, which was actually a decent market share in those days. Indeed, the documents on bitsavers from this era like the GE PAC-4000 manual, call it "monitor" in 1966. It is always amusing to see it called a "main frame" since its memory could expand from 2K to 16 K words! There is an uncited mention of this line in General Electric#Computing. It was evidently used to control nuclear reactors, so wonder how long it was still being used? Maybe a merge or at least a link into that section is in order. Another longer-term idea would be to merge all the GE computer articles together into one that is sourced and presents a coherent narrative. But one step at a time. W Nowicki (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.