Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart File System: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Creating deletion discussion page for Smart File System. (TW) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (46 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''keep'''. <small>([[Wikipedia:NACD#Non-administrators_closing_discussions|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User:DavidLeighEllis|DavidLeighEllis]] ([[User talk:DavidLeighEllis|talk]]) 19:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
===[[Smart File System]]===
:{{la|Smart File System}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart File System|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October
:({{Find sources AFD|Smart File System}})
I can find no reliable, third-party sources that cover this filesystem in any depth. Fails [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Qwertyus|Q<small>VVERTYVS</small>]] <small>([[User talk:Qwertyus|hm?]])</small> 10:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' - This is a widely-used filesystem on [[AmigaOS]], and the default filesystem in [[MorphOS]]. Maybe we can't expect it to be documented by very major computer science books, but nonetheless it has the same standing as the plethora Amiga and non-Amiga filesystems that are documented on this encyclopedia. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 11:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|LjL}} Then please help save if by finding sources that satisfy the [[WP:GNG]] criteria. I agree with Qwertyus that notability is not established — the only sources in the article are [[WP:PSTS|primary sources]] and not [[WP:IS|independent]]. The article has had a {{tl|Refimprove}} tag since July 2009. -- [[user:intgr|intgr]] <small>[[user talk:intgr|[talk]]]</small> 12:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
*::I have now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smart_File_System&type=revision&diff=683804127&oldid=683767268 cited a couple of books] about some statements in the article. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 16:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
*:::The coverage in ''Digital Image Forensics'' is a single sentence. The coverage in ''Computer Forensics'' is a bit better, but still only an entry in an exhaustive listing of file systems (though I guess it hints at real-world use). Is merging to [[MorphOS]] an option? [[User:Qwertyus|Q<small>VVERTYVS</small>]] <small>([[User talk:Qwertyus|hm?]])</small> 17:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
*::::I do not find that makes logical sense. The filesystem wasn't created on or for MorphOS, and it is still in use on AmigaOS (and IIRC [[Amiga Research Operating System|AROS]], it just so happens to have been chosen as the default filesystem for MorphOS after being made open source. And again, do we need, what, a book written entirely about the topic of SFS for this article to warrant staying? [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 17:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
*:::::Ok, that's a fair point. What we need is [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]] in multiple third-party sources. Aren't their any Amiga mags or books that cover file systems? [[User:Qwertyus|Q<small>VVERTYVS</small>]] <small>([[User talk:Qwertyus|hm?]])</small> 17:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size:x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 16:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size:x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep'''. Many of the file systems listed in [[Comparison of file systems]] have few independent published sources available. File systems developed in academia or for major commercial computers get written about publicly. Other file systems produced by companies are documented internally. They aren't usually written about in consumer magazines.
:File systems are notable as components of notable systems and an important part of a system's historical development. See also [[Amiga Old File System]], [[Amiga Fast File System]], and [[Professional File System]] for the Amiga which would also have to be deleted. [[User:StarryGrandma|StarryGrandma]] ([[User talk:StarryGrandma|talk]]) 06:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' AfD talks a bunch about notability, but the underlying policy behind all this is [[WP:V|verifiability]]; if there are enough third-party sources to be able to verify an article, that should be considered notability enough (and this is pretty much exactly what [[WP:GNG]] says!), and if there aren't, you'll never be able to write a verifiable article and thus it should be deleted. Seeing the conversation above made me fear that the article couldn't be verified (a one-sentence mention isn't really enough), but although some of the existing citations are dubious, there seems to be enough valid ones around that it's possible to write a verifiable article (perhaps a shorter one than currently, though). --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 06:42, 3 October 2015 ([[User:ais523|U]][[User talk:ais523|T]][[Special:Contributions/Ais523|C]])
**Notability is not the same thing as verifiability and the two should not be confused. In short, notability is the requirement for inclusion of a ''subject''. Verifiability is the threshold for inclusion of any content ''within'' an article. A non-notable article does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia, ''even if the content in it is verifiable''. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'><big>♠</big></span>]] 06:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
***{{ping|Swarm}} Although I respect that opinion, I strongly disagree with it. To me, verifiability is the line between what Wikipedia should cover and what it shouldn't. (When I started at Wikipedia, [[WP:N]] was just an essay, but enough people agreed with it that it eventually got promoted to a guideline. Then I took a very long wikibreak. When I came back, [[WP:GNG]] had been created, which effectively defines notability in terms of verifiability, and I'm fine with that. Something doesn't get covered in multiple unconnected sources without being notable to some extent, and if something is notable, then unconnected sources will start covering it. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 23:15, 14 October 2015 ([[User:ais523|U]][[User talk:ais523|T]][[Special:Contributions/Ais523|C]])
* '''Comment'''. I'm seeing a lot of keep votes and very few sources. If there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources, then the article should probably be redirected or merged somewhere. You don't inherit notability from your parent operating system. Otherwise, we'd have an entire encyclopedia full of Linux kernel miscellany. Or, at least, it would be even worse than what we do have. The problem is that the Amiga has been dead for 20 years. I'm not even sure where to start looking for sources, but there may be something useful on Google Books. My searches didn't really turn up much there. This could probably be redirected to [[list of file systems]] if no in-depth sources are found. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 08:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
*:[[WP:NTEMP|Is notability based on how long something has been 'dead']]? Even the article about [[ext2]] (the [[Linux]] filesystem) doesn't have this plethora of non-primary sources, while now the article about Amiga's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amiga_Old_File_System&curid=844938&diff=683907260&oldid=665962497 OFS has been tagged as one-source] by the editor who proposed this AfD. The article about the [[MINIX file system]] also has only one third-party source, while funnily enough, the other two sources are [[Andrew Tanenbaum]] and [[Linus Torvalds]]. Am I proposing that all these filesystems be considered for turning into oblivion from Wikipedia? Hell no. They are all pretty relevant, even if lengthy features in magazines or whatnot have not been pinpointed. But if nothing else, I ''will'' try to go for consistency on this encyclopedia if it is decided that only some roughly-equally-as-documented filesystems are not worthy of articles. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 11:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
*::Thanks for the check; I just added some secondary sources to [[MINIX file system]] (and removed Torvalds's autobiography). Regarding [[Amiga Old File System]]: that article has only one source, and I'd like to see more, but I'm not suggesting it be deleted because if what the article states can be corroborated, this should be a perfectly notable file system. [[User:Qwertyus|Q<small>VVERTYVS</small>]] <small>([[User talk:Qwertyus|hm?]])</small> 08:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' As a general guidelines, I would agree that notability isn't inherited from a parent entity. But part of an enterprise like Wikipedia is a certain level of completeness. If I can find out every release date of Amiga and a changelog on that page, but not get any detail about a file system that ran on it, something is wrong. I would agree to a proposal to cut back some of the needlessly gory detail on the Amiga page and merge things like this article in, but the content on this page is worth keeping around and is in keeping with the other topics in this area.--[[Special:Contributions/69.204.153.39|69.204.153.39]] ([[User talk:69.204.153.39|talk]]) 20:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
*: While my vote is also to keep, I disagree that it would be practical to merge this with [[Amiga]], as if we put every relevant filesystem there, that article would become quite a mess. Independent article is right in my opinion. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 12:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Doesn't pass notability criteria, and searches turned up nothing to suggest it does. Arguments to keep above, while passionate and well-thought out, are not policy based. [[User:onel5969|<b><span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#FFB300;">5969</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 01:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />'''Relisting comment:''' The requirement for policy-based arguments merely represents the greater community consensus. A local consensus that is not rooted in community consensus cannot be interpreted as a valid consensus. So, while a clear majority are in favor of keeping, I don't see policy-based arguments in response to the policy-based arguments in favor of deletion. Those in favor of keeping need to make a better argument or their comments may be discarded. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'><big>♠</big></span>]] 06:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''S'''</big><small>'''''warm'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'><big>♠</big></span>]] 06:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
:I'd say that since "a clear majority is in favor of keeping", and the current state of thing is that the article exists, there is '''no consensus to delete'''. Given that, I think at this point you're twisting process, and it's interesting that other filesystem-related articles that were AfD'd were hastily deleted (even though they were receiving sources and improvements), this one is being hastily... relisted. --[[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 11:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
:: {{reply to|LjL}} I agree. Attempting to parse what [[User:Swarm|Swarm]] is saying, I think he may be mistaking guidelines (of which there are many) for policy (of which there are few) and substituting personal judgement for clear consensus. But the best any of us can do is employ our judgement, guided by guidelines and experience. The only statement I found on WP on the matter of local versus community consensus is this: "The term local consensus should also be avoided. Consensus is always understood to refer to those editors who take part in a discussion, whether current or historical. All consensus is local..." It's unfortunate so many areas of Wikipedia are being eaten away at in this fashion, but given the current system, everyone must use their own judgement and try to act in good faith.--[[Special:Contributions/69.204.153.39|69.204.153.39]] ([[User talk:69.204.153.39|talk]]) 14:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
:<s>'''Delete'''. Just because AmigaOS is notable does not mean that all its components are. [[Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS|OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Ultimately, I'm not seeing any convincing evidence at all that this article meets [[WP:NSOFTWARE]]. All mentions in books are brief one-liners. The mentions I found elsewhere on the web were from obscure and likely non-reliable sources. This certainly does not satisfy the requirement that the software be the ''subject'' (not merely mentioned) in multiple manuals, reviews, instruction books, etc. --[[User:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37;">'''''Biblio'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37">'''''worm'''''</span>]] 18:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)</s> Changed to keep. --[[User:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37;">'''''Biblio'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37">'''''worm'''''</span>]] 02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
:: Please be mindful that [[WP:NSOFTWARE]] is an essay -- not a guideline, policy, or rule. It has been rejected as a policy in the past as it lacks community consensus, which (as its header pointedly mentions) makes it not terribly applicable in these discussions.--[[Special:Contributions/69.204.153.39|69.204.153.39]] ([[User talk:69.204.153.39|talk]]) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
::: But maybe it only lacks local consensus but it has global consensus... </sarcasm> [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 11:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Biblio's statement applies just as well for [[WP:GNG]], so the argument still stands. (I think people should stop using subject-specific guidelines entirely. All subject-specific guidelines are largely a restatement of [[WP:GNG]] along with arbitrary shortcuts, that some people assumed would only include clearly notable instances) -- [[user:intgr|intgr]] <small>[[user talk:intgr|[talk]]]</small> 07:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I've added another two sources, one to an article on the ''Total Amiga'' magazine elaborating on how to make the best use of hard drives, and including some information about SFS previously not on our article (deleted files directory), and another to a mention on [[Ars Technica]] claiming that (as of 2008, when the article was written) the filesystem was still in active use among "Amiga fans". --[[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 12:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
**The Ars Technica magazine is just a brief one-line mention. The ''Total Amiga'' entry has some substance, but it's still not really enough to establish notability. It's the only (somewhat) good source on the article, and GNG says that multiple in-depth sources are expected. Think about it: if this subject was really notable, why must we press really hard through obscure fans-only magazines to find even a single one-paragraph mention? --[[User:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37;">'''''Biblio'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37">'''''worm'''''</span>]] 15:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:** Uhm, because it's a computer file system, making it not exactly everyone's favorite conversation topic, but if this intrinsic paucity of secondary sources is not accounted for, then many legitimate technical topics will never have the amount of coverage some editors want for everything. I must also mention I find it a slight symptom of bias when I comment about adding sources and people consistently counter-comment "but it's still not enough". [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:***Why should software be the exception to GNG? Note that I'm not somehow opposed to software; I'm very interested in it and in fact know some coding myself. But if a certain piece of software is actually notable and deserves coverage in Wikipedia, it shouldn't be especially difficult to find somewhat in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. It should meet this criteria if it is actually "legitimate"; in fact, the standard of "legitimate" on Wikipedia is defined by the policy. There is always [[WP:IAR]], but invoking it for only one file system would set a bad precedent. ("Upset that your article doesn't meet the notability guidelines? No problem! Just cite [[WP:IAR]]!") --[[User:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37;">'''''Biblio'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37">'''''worm'''''</span>]] 20:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:****I don't invoke [[WP:IAR]], if anything I just invoke [[WP:COMMON|common sense]] in applying [[WP:Notability]] (which, as a guideline and not a policy, "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense"), and in particular I ask that the requirements of notability "proof" are weighed against the conceivably possible "proof" that you could obtain for this ''sort'' of topic. If you, for example, set the bar as high as the amount of references you can find to establish notability for the [[Physics]] article, then you would exclude pretty much everything else. Instead, I think notability requirement should be toned down common-sensically (not waived) for topics that are quite technical and narrow, and as such, while still useful information to have, may not be on every book and magazine on Earth. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:****:{{Ping|LjL}} The notability requirements are like that for good reasons, see [[WP:WHYN]]. Without good substantial sources, it's really not possible to write a neutral and verifiable article. Common sense tells me this applies regardless of what kind of subject it is. -- [[user:intgr|intgr]] <small>[[user talk:intgr|[talk]]]</small> 19:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I note that section states "''We require the existence of '''at least one''' secondary source so that [...]''" (emphasis mine); so the strict insistence on having multiple secondary sources available may be a bit over the top, and given 1) we have at least one or two ''secondary'' sources establishing we aren't making things up and 2) we have some ''primary'' sources telling us the details about this filesystem, I think that can be enough. And so does the section you linked, in my reading. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 20:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{Ping|LjL}} Ok, that's starting to make sense to me. But please do other editors a favor and provide external links, page numbers, etc along with your sources, so it's easier to verify. If you make it easy for other editors to figure out what you're talking about, then more people are encouraged to do so. For example, with most books you can create links to a Google Books preview directly to the right page, see [[WP:BOOKLINKS]]. Also, is the cited "Smart Filesystem documentation" available on the Internet somewhere? If you do that, I'll have a look at the sources and vote here. -- [[user:intgr|intgr]] <small>[[user talk:intgr|[talk]]]</small> 10:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::I assure you I usually go to great lengths to make "proper" citations whenever I'm able. I see I've added two books by ISBN+title only, I must have been in a hurry. There is also the problem that I don't exactly know how to refer to different page numbers within the same source, unless I duplicate the entire citation each time (or we change the article to Harvard referencing, which I don't even like). As to official documentation, there is the original [[AmigaGuide]] documented as [http://www.amiga-stuff.com/text/filesystems/SFS.guide an external link] already, and I will add a [http://hjohn.home.xs4all.nl/SFS/block.htm description of the block format] (the "developer's manual" if you like), though both refer to the original version, not the "modern" versions in MorphOS/AROS/etc. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 11:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::I've now hopefully [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smart_File_System&type=revision&diff=686493929&oldid=685667906 improved the citations] a bit (and added a cited fact about [[UEFI]] support). [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 13:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''': Four independent published sources are cited in the article, but with limited coverage; substantial coverage exists in primary sources. This article does not strictly satisfy [[WP:GNG]], but I think it's fair to relax GNG requirements somewhat, as some of the reasons in [[WP:WHYN]] do not apply — SFS is now mostly a fact of history, there is no risk of it being an advertisement or a hoax. Due to [[WP:Recentism]], it's naturally more difficult to locate sources for this subject, but they probably exist in archives somewhere (e.g. old magazines). As evidenced by the amount of discussion and edits since the AfD begun, there are interested editors around to keep the article maintained. -- [[user:intgr|intgr]] <small>[[user talk:intgr|[talk]]]</small> 13:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />'''Relisting comment:''' It is only fair to give this AfD one more run through, if only to give the editors who have commented "this is notable, but sources are hard to find" one more chance. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 22:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 22:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
*'''Comment''': is this going to be relisted ''ad libitum'' until the somewhat overwhelming "keep"s somehow start turning into overwhelming "delete"s? [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 22:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. This was a very difficult decision, but I think, after examining the new sources added to the article, that it does satisfy [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:NSOFTWARE]]. (There are a couple of linked manuals exclusively about the file system.) Therefore, I am changing my opinion to "keep". --[[User:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37;">'''''Biblio'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37">'''''worm'''''</span>]] 02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Agree with Biblioworm, the manuals show SFS passes [[WP:NSOFTWARE]]. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 18:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||