Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failure-oblivious computing: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Unblock declined. |
Closing debate, result was keep |
||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''keep'''. Per [[WP:NOTCLEANUP]], it is not necessary that an article ''contain'' references to reliable sources; those sources must merely exist. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♥</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♦</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">♣</font>]] ♠ 07:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
===[[Failure-oblivious computing]]===
{{search for|Failure-oblivious computing}}
:{{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>)
Line 15 ⟶ 21:
**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 -->
*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)
**Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. In my opinion our coverage of computing contains many articles that are of no use whatsoever to a general audience and are more like a directory of obscure terminology than encyclopedic content. This article being an example of such. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 20:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Line 26 ⟶ 32:
:::I know nobody explicitly said I am a lazy ignoramus, but the tone of some of the above comments certainly suggests it. I haven't improved the article myself for two reasons: 1. I know nothing about the subject matter and do not believe I could properly make the improvements. 2. I do not believe this is a particularly notable concept that Wikipedia needs to cover in it's own article, which is the ''only'' reason I have nominated it for deletion. I ''love'' seeing crappy articles get improved by collaboration. That has not and by all indications will not happen to this article. Your own argument leans towards not keeping it as a stand alone article, the problem being that there is no umbrella article on the broader subject involved to merge it to. In short I would fix it myself if I thought I could, I'm not afraid to improve articles and have done so hundreds of times. I don't see any hope for this one, and it is tiring in the extreme to repeatedly see the argument that somebody possibly could maybe fix it someday based on nothing but [[WP:GHITS]]. I also don't appreciate the suggestion that I have abused the afd process. I am not advocating that the article be cleaned up because I don't think it can be. I am advocating for its deletion, which is exactly what AFD is for. I have to mention as well that "whinger" is not a term I am familiar with but I have a feeling I don't much like being thus identified. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 04:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:V]]. The article does not contain references to published reliable sources that support the content. Per [[WP:BURDEN]], it is incumbent on those who want to retain the article to add any such sources. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 07:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||