Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart File System: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Smart File System: r to Swarm: notability versus verifiability |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 8 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)
Line 13 ⟶ 20:
*:::::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|<
:<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|<
*'''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.
Line 29 ⟶ 36:
* '''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><
<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 -->
: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)
:: 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)
Line 47 ⟶ 54:
:****:{{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>
| |||