Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moose File System: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:18, 2 June 2010

Revision as of 17:30, 2 June 2010

Line 4:

:{{la|Moose File System}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moose File System|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 2#{{anchorencode:Moose File System}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moose File System}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Moose File System}})

<s>Unremarkable</s>Non notable open source project. Sourceforge files list shows very few downloads and not a lot of google hits. Nothing to show [[WP:notability]]. Article is unreferenced. A similar article was PRODed last year named MooseFS - seems this was set up in its place and was missed at the time. Disputed Prod. Since the prod, a reference to a Polish magazine article in a pdf hosted on the projects own website has been added. [[User:Noq|noq]] ([[User talk:Noq|talk]]) 12:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Line 16:

You are right though that the article is missing some neccesary elements, notably the references section needs expanding. I'll do that as soon as possible. As to the "reliable source", I'm not qiute sure what is considered a "reliable source" when it comes to an open source software project, especially when it does not have academical origins. Anyway I hope the article in Linux magazine is "reliable" enough. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ales-76|Ales-76]] ([[User talk:Ales-76|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ales-76|contribs]]) 13:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:A single reference hosted on the projects website is unlikely to be enough. My look through google did not find any significant coverage hence bringing the article here. [[User:Noq|noq]] ([[User talk:Noq|talk]]) 17:30, 2 June 2010 (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]]) 13:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)</small>

* '''Keep''' When did we start requiring that subjects be "remarkable" too? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 13:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

**Remarkable isn't a requirement, but notability is. [[User:Joe Chill|Joe Chill]] ([[User talk:Joe Chill|talk]]) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

**sloppy wording on my part - now corrected. [[User:Noq|noq]] ([[User talk:Noq|talk]]) 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Delete''': One source with significant coverage isn't enough and I can't find anymore. [[User:Joe Chill|Joe Chill]] ([[User talk:Joe Chill|talk]]) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)