Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bare-metal server

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clearly no consensus to delete this article. Merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page if desired. A Train^talk 20:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bare-metal server

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a redundant page, describing a lot most of the things in computer server. Also only has three citations. AtlasDuane (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not redundant, because although a bare metal server is simply a computer server, the term is used when in contrast to a virtual server. With the growth of cloud computing in particular, we now need to make that as a distinction we just didn't need a few years ago.

As to the number of citations, then you're welcome to add some more. What is WP:POLICY now ? Articles need to have 4 citations or they're speedy-deleted? Or is it 5? Or 23? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This term is more than eligible for inclusion, but it's an editorial judgement about whether it warrants a separate article. The issue is how much of the article's content is better covered elsewhere, and what scope should be left for this article. Once that is determined, are we left with a WP:PERMASTUB, and is that actually an issue, or are we better off redirecting to a subsection of another article. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So where would you merge it? To Virtual server? - where we don't even have an article? And which represents the opposite of this term. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article does have only 3 sources, but there are more sources available if you do a Google search. Capitals00 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Merge the term is jargon and the article is low-quality. I'll comment with a redirect target recommendation once I find one; it's either a synonym for computer, or an antonym of virtual machine but neither is a redirect possibility. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Redirect to somewhere we haven't got" How does that work then?

Also when did " article is low-quality" become a reason to WP:DELETE? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated hosting service may be an option. And I'm advocating deletion of most of the existing content as an editorial decision, not as an AfD one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So because this article is "so badly sourced it must be deleted at once!", you want to redirect it to Dedicated hosting service. Which has no working references at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, my vote should have been Merge. That said, not everything at AfD is entirely about the existence of sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the purpose of Wikipedia still to be an encyclopedia? (I'm unconvinced this week) As "bare-metal server" is a current term of art (just look at Google), then how is this encyclopedic goal served by redirecting a WP:NOTABLE term to an unsourced article that doesn't mention it? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.