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

Revision as of 17:30, 2 June 2010

Revision as of 23:13, 2 June 2010

Line 17:

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)

The reference is hosted on the projects website, correct. But the article is from reliable source and it is not otherwise freely accessible - one would have to buy or borrow printed issue of the Linux Magazine. Hosting articles about a product is not uncommon practice, by example semiconductor manufacturers quite often offer free downloadable issue of Microprocessor report (which is otherwise damn expensive), when it is about their product. There is nothing wrong with that. If one reference from notable source is not enough than too bad, but at the moment I cannot provide more. Hopefully in couple of months the situation will be different, MooseFS just got into FreeBSD ports so I guess the number of users is growing. And by the way, Google shows over 30000 hits for MooseFS. I could expand the article with links to some web resources like blogs and such, but I guess these won't be considered reliable, and in deed the content is often sketchy and unmethodical. In any case, it seems to me that the only thing valid from the original claim for removal is that there is only one reference. I admit that, and I do understand that editors of Wikipedia act on good will, so that the content of every article is backed up by a reliable source. However, I think that the Wikipedia audience has more to loose than gain by removing the article, since era of distributed storage is just coming and people come here to get the picture, to find out what it is about and to see what options they have. [[User:Ales-76|Ales-76]] ([[User talk:Ales-76|talk]]) 23:13, 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>