Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failure-oblivious computing: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) Relisting debate |
This is valid content under a valid sub-topic title. |
||
Line 1:
===[[Failure-oblivious computing]]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}
:{{la|Failure-oblivious computing}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failure-oblivious computing|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 12#{{anchorencode:Failure-oblivious computing}}|View log]]</noinclude>)
▲:({{Find sources|Failure-oblivious computing}})
Declined [[WP:PROD]]. PROD was removed several months ago, yet no attempt was ever made to fix the problems identified. Original PROD reasoning was "''No [[WP:RS|sources]] or other evidence of [[WP:N|notability]].''" [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 03:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' A Google Books search reveals enough sources to establish notability. --[[User:Pontificalibus|<font style="color:#555555"><strong>Pontificalibus</strong></font>]] ([[User talk:Pontificalibus#top|talk]]) 13:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. It needs to be noted that the "book" with this title found by a Google Books search is a Wikipedia mirror. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
***No, it means that you clearly haven't used Google Books yourself. There are more books that come up in a Google Books search than just "the book ''with this title''". There are, for starters, two sets of conference proceedings (MMM-ACNS 2007 and ICA3PP 2009) with papers that build upon, and themselves cite, Rinard's work on failure-oblivious computing.<p>This begs the question "Why?". Why didn't you look at what Google Books brings up? It's not exactly hard to do, and it takes less time than it took to make the edit that I'm replying to here. You'd have ''seen for yourself'' that Phil Bridger was talking about one book ''out of many''. Why did you take the zero-effort route? That's not what I'd expect from you.<p>The lack of interest in fixing things is endemic, by the way. It's not even confined to computing subjects — where, as noted, our coverage is nowhere near as good as it has traditionally been thought to be by observers. One could posit many reasons for it, but none are relevant to a deletion discussion of this article; nor are they rationales for deletion or ''evidence of anything except that Wikipedia writers don't write''. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' The notability is not solidified by the sources indicated. --[[User:Stormbay|Stormbay]] ([[User talk:Stormbay|talk]]) 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
**It was pointed out in October 2010 when this was at Proposed Deletion that the sources supplied are not necessarily the sole sources that exist, and it has already been pointed out again, above, here. Please try to address current arguments, rather than resetting the discussion to zero. This ''is'' supposed to be a discussion, and we ''are'' expected to read it before joining in. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 18:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)</small>
*'''Merge''' into [[fault tolerance]] or [[fault-tolerant system]]. The concept is notable enough to be mentioned but not notable enough to warrant its own article. It should be described in one of the two articles cited – unfortunately, they are very poor in quality. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh|talk]]) 09:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
**If we had an article on [[self-healing software system]]s or [[software self-healing]], then ''that'' would be the proper place to include this, per the MMM-ACNS 2007 paper by computer science professor {{plainlink|http://www.cs.columbia.edu./~angelos/|Angelos D. Keromytis}}. But our coverage of computing subjects is, as usual, superficial and poor; and we have no such article yet. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
<hr style="width:55%;" />
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 00:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
*As noted above, sources exist (as the people who expended the effort to look for them found) discussing this within the umbrella topic of [[self-healing software system]]s or [[software self-healing]]. Since we don't have that yet, our coverage of computing subjects being superficial and poor here just as elsewhere, we cannot merge yet. So we '''keep''', since this is valid content under a valid sub-topic title with a useful cited source. There's no sense in throwing this away. It's content that can be built upon. And our coverage of computing certainly needs building. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
| |||