Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failure-oblivious computing: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) →Failure-oblivious computing: look at the diffs |
On problems |
||
Line 17:
:<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)
***Wikipedia has plenty of articles on ''every'' subject that are of no use whatsoever to a general audience. ''All'' subjects are minority-interest subjects. We don't exclude things from an encyclopaedia because only ''some'' readers will read them. ''No'' reader reads an entire encyclopaedia. This is a reference work we are writing, which readers dip into as and when they want to know something, not a novel. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 04:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per [[WP:NOTCLEANUP]], [[WP:NOEFFORT]] and [[WP:IDONTKNOWIT]]. Numerous sources show it's a notable computing concept. Deleting obscure but encyclopedic stuff is hardly a way to encourage people with special knowledge to edit wikipedia. <sup><small><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/Victor_falk|''walk'']]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">[[user:victor falk|''victor falk'']]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">[[user_talk:victor falk|''talk'']]</font></small></sup> 23:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
*This is a perfect example if what is wrong with afd. Some people do a couple of google searches and cnoclude based on that that the topic is notable. Policies are slung around, a mild personal attack is made on the nominator, and the article.... still sucks balls and hasn't been edited a single time in the 16 days since being nominated, and hasn't been edited in any substantive way since the PROD was declined three months ago There actually hasn't been a substantive edit that actually improved this article in any meaningful way since it was created nearly six years ago. Then :[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Failure-oblivious_computing&diff=prev&oldid=17636211] Now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Failure-oblivious_computing&diff=405820241&oldid=405815689] If it is so obvious to all of you how easy it would be to fix the article how come nobody is willing to do it? If it can be fixed, fix it and I'll happily concede the point. I suppose it's easier to say I'm a lazy ignoramus because I'm not a computer geek. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
**No-one has said that, of course, and you are making a straw man argument. Now what ''is'' lazy, however, is the bad attitude, which I wouldn't have expected to come from ''you'', that it's somehow [[Project:Somebody Else's Problem|Somebody Else's Problem]] to do this fixing that ''you want done''. So an article isn't perfect yet. Perfection ab initio is not required, and writing an encyclopaedia is the work of years and decades, not 16 days, or even three months. If one wants something done, one mustn't do nothing and then whinge about the fact that no-one does anything. That, after all, clearly defines onesself, the whinger, as part of the very problem of people who do nothing. One must, rather, be bold and do it. That's what [[Wikipedia:Be bold]] has always been about.<p>This isn't what's bad about AFD. This is what's bad about expecting other people to do the writing and abusing AFD as a club, when that doesn't happen to one's satisfaction and volunteer editors don't jump when one shouts "frog!". What you've really exemplified, and quite badly, is what's wrong with some people's approach to a collaborative, long-term, writing project. Demanding that ''someone else make this better or I, whilst doing nothing myself, will try to tear down what other people have made so far'' is very wrong, and not only not the way that we intend to write things here, but also not the way that, over the past decade, most of our content ''has been written in practice''. Go and look at the incremental evolution of the [[banana]] article over 9 years, from a 1 sentence stub with a single source to what it is now. Go and look at how long it took [[North Asia]], an entire region of the planet, to expand.<p>Live with the fact that we're not finished yet, don't abuse deletion nominations as a way to whip writers into writing to your personal timetable, and don't decry a lack of effort whilst being the very no effort problem that you decry. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 04:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
| |||