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

Revision as of 20:28, 4 June 2010

Revision as of 23:33, 4 June 2010

Line 26:

**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)

*<s>'''Delete'''</s> '''Comment''': I think one reputable source with significant coverage would be enough to establish notability of a file system. On the one hand, [[Linux Magazine]] is apparently reputable; on the other, the source's author Mariusz Gądarowski appears to be affiliated with MooseFS creators Gemius SA and Jakub Kruszona-Zawadzki.[http://pl.linkedin.com/pub/mariusz-gądarowski/4/747/465] Given that I can't read the article, it's difficult to reconcile these factors. And – I also can't find any more sources. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 00:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' I came to this article to learn about MooseFS, with the benefit of the same NPOV standards that are available for its competitors. If someone is willing to keep the article up to date (one sign of a healthy project), then there is no reason to hide this information. Properly functioning distributed file systems are a rare breed, and the underlying data storage decision is a critical one for an organization; that makes this is a notable and relevant project, whether or not an organization decides to use it. Meanwhile, Pnm discounts Linux Magazine's standard operating procedure too quickly, while also complaining about the language; these are not reasons for deletion. - [[User:Rgrant|Rgrant]] ([[User talk:Rgrant|talk]]) 20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

**I've been thinking about this. I'm ambivalent about the deletion. Seems like a useful article, but I can't verify that it meets the "requirements." --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 23:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)