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

Revision as of 11:18, 3 October 2015

Revision as of 20:27, 3 October 2015

Line 23:

* '''Comment'''. I'm seeing a lot of keep votes and very few sources. If there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources, then the article should probably be redirected or merged somewhere. You don't inherit notability from your parent operating system. Otherwise, we'd have an entire encyclopedia full of Linux kernel miscellany. Or, at least, it would be even worse than what we do have. The problem is that the Amiga has been dead for 20 years. I'm not even sure where to start looking for sources, but there may be something useful on Google Books. My searches didn't really turn up much there. This could probably be redirected to [[list of file systems]] if no in-depth sources are found. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 08:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

*:[[WP:NTEMP|Is notability based on how long something has been 'dead']]? Even the article about [[ext2]] (the [[Linux]] filesystem) doesn't have this plethora of non-primary sources, while now the article about Amiga's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amiga_Old_File_System&curid=844938&diff=683907260&oldid=665962497 OFS has been tagged as one-source] by the editor who proposed this AfD. The article about the [[MINIX file system]] also has only one third-party source, while funnily enough, the other two sources are [[Andrew Tanenbaum]] and [[Linus Torvalds]]. Am I proposing that all these filesystems be considered for turning into oblivion from Wikipedia? Hell no. They are all pretty relevant, even if lengthy features in magazines or whatnot have not been pinpointed. But if nothing else, I ''will'' try to go for consistency on this encyclopedia if it is decided that only some roughly-equally-as-documented filesystems are not worthy of articles. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 11:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)