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

Revision as of 22:33, 19 October 2015

Revision as of 02:45, 22 October 2015

Line 35:

:I'd say that since "a clear majority is in favor of keeping", and the current state of thing is that the article exists, there is '''no consensus to delete'''. Given that, I think at this point you're twisting process, and it's interesting that other filesystem-related articles that were AfD'd were hastily deleted (even though they were receiving sources and improvements), this one is being hastily... relisted. --[[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 11:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

:: {{reply to|LjL}} I agree. Attempting to parse what [[User:Swarm|Swarm]] is saying, I think he may be mistaking guidelines (of which there are many) for policy (of which there are few) and substituting personal judgement for clear consensus. But the best any of us can do is employ our judgement, guided by guidelines and experience. The only statement I found on WP on the matter of local versus community consensus is this: "The term local consensus should also be avoided. Consensus is always understood to refer to those editors who take part in a discussion, whether current or historical. All consensus is local..." It's unfortunate so many areas of Wikipedia are being eaten away at in this fashion, but given the current system, everyone must use their own judgement and try to act in good faith.--[[Special:Contributions/69.204.153.39|69.204.153.39]] ([[User talk:69.204.153.39|talk]]) 14:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

*:<s>'''Delete'''. Just because AmigaOS is notable does not mean that all its components are. [[Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS|OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Ultimately, I'm not seeing any convincing evidence at all that this article meets [[WP:NSOFTWARE]]. All mentions in books are brief one-liners. The mentions I found elsewhere on the web were from obscure and likely non-reliable sources. This certainly does not satisfy the requirement that the software be the ''subject'' (not merely mentioned) in multiple manuals, reviews, instruction books, etc. --[[User:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37;">'''''Biblio'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37">'''''worm'''''</span>]] 18:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)</s> Changed to keep. --[[User:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37;">'''''Biblio'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37">'''''worm'''''</span>]] 02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

:: Please be mindful that [[WP:NSOFTWARE]] is an essay -- not a guideline, policy, or rule. It has been rejected as a policy in the past as it lacks community consensus, which (as its header pointedly mentions) makes it not terribly applicable in these discussions.--[[Special:Contributions/69.204.153.39|69.204.153.39]] ([[User talk:69.204.153.39|talk]]) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

::: But maybe it only lacks local consensus but it has global consensus... </sarcasm> [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 11:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Line 56:

*'''Comment''': is this going to be relisted ''ad libitum'' until the somewhat overwhelming "keep"s somehow start turning into overwhelming "delete"s? [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 22:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. This was a very difficult decision, but I think, after examining the new sources added to the article, that it does satisfy [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:NSOFTWARE]]. (There are a couple of linked manuals exclusively about the file system.) Therefore, I am changing my opinion to "keep". --[[User:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37;">'''''Biblio'''''</span>]][[User_talk:Biblioworm|<span style="color:#6F4E37">'''''worm'''''</span>]] 02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)