Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Whale Clustered file system

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Whale Clustered file system

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

Borderline promotional, not so much in tone as in content: the product is entirely not notable, as far as I can see. Related to it is Tianjin Zhongke Blue Whale Information Technologies Co., Ltd., speedied once already as promotional and again nominated (A7). Drmies (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline indeed. Article is poor quality, but I did find a few papers published about it. 2009 IEEE International Conference on Networking, Architecture, and Storage, and High Performance Computing and Communications, 2009, Proceedings of Int. Conf. Interaction Sciences '2009. Also a short news reference that it was used for video production of the 2008 olympics. Not the most selective sources but there might be more. I do not have time to work these into the article today, however. Give it a few days and see if someone is motivated to work on it. Even Chinese sources might help argue notability, in addition to the English ones. W Nowicki (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Blue Whale Clustered file system. Added some content. I will continue to add. ^_^ Goodzili (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC+8)

You already had plenty of unsourced content. That is not the problem. An article needs sources in citations so that other editors can verify that the claims in the article correspond to those sources. You might want to look at other articles that use the <ref></ref> construction for example. Also read style guidelines for what belongs in each section. The "See also" section for example has one link that should go into an external link section instead, and another that just promotes the company so should be deleted. If the papers are written by BWFS developers, then they are not really independent, but citing them would be better than guessing how to verify each claim. Finally some of the text just seems to describe how cluster file systems work in general. It is not clear how this one differs from the several others that have articles, for example. W Nowicki (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Blue Whale Clustered file system. Added "Independent third-party evaluation from Gartner" and deleted external link. Goodzili (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC+8)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually zero independent coverage required by WP:CORP. Papers by the company, even academic ones, are too new to evaluate citation-wise. The Gartner report is not about this product, and those reports seldom have in-depth material, they are an overview of a sector. But in this case it's not even one of those, e.g. a cluster or network file system market survey but "China Research Lab Case Study Shows Benefits of 'Homegrown' Advanced Technology", which sounds like an advertorial. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A file system that actually works and is used is notable. How can that not be notable?! DeVerm (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Apart from a brief blurb from a Chinese news agency [1], there's zero evidence of use. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The public-private joint-venture company that makes this (and which ironically was deleted) actually gets a bit of independent coverage [2] mostly from the business angle, but the product doesn't. There's probably nothing special about it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, since when do Chinese news agencies don't count? Also, there's nothing special about Unix File System UFS (it's the most boring FS of all) but that doesn't make it not notable. I don't like to see talk like "zero evidence of use" combined with "apart from brief blurp... Chinese news agency". There is evidence of it's use so don't write that there isn't... and maybe get used to the Chinese, they won't go away anytime soon I think :-) DeVerm (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

If you actually read the background on this, this file system was mainly developed at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The fact that a Chinese news agency, most if not all of which are state-controlled--last time I checked--drums this up in a ~100 word blurb, which isn't even mainly about this topic, is not really in-depth coverage or overwhelmingly independent. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may not like the Chinese Academy of Sciences but that doesn't mean that their work is not notable. You may also not like state controlled news agencies but surely you do not mean that WP does not recognize them as reliable sources? The source is good IMO - DeVerm (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Undecided, leaning towards delete Gartner, isn't that the company you pay to write an "independent" review on your product? The publications are from respected, instead of obscure, journals this time, but all by the same set of authors. The Gartner blurb claims this is actually used in industry (in China?), so if someone can find some additional independent evidence of this, I'd probably say keep, otherwise delete. —Ruud 09:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the section "Data access process" might seem to provide some technical details to the layperson, but really is just a superficial description of how most clustered file systems would work, not BWFS in particular. —Ruud 09:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I verified a few of the sources. Still not solid, since so many are only slightly independent. The papers are from 2009 or 2010, while the press seems from 2006 or 2007. Two of their investors are notable enough to have articles. There do seem a bunch of articles on the product BWStor, but they are all in Chinese, which I do not read. (not to be confused with the BWSTOR Bloomberg World Storage/Warehousing Index!) No evidence it is used outside of China, but that should not deny it. Also odd that there is no article linked on the Chinese wikipedia? The Gartner piece is from 2006, marked a "archive" with the disclaimer "portions of this document may not reflect current conditions" not exactly inspiring confidence. And yes, Gartner writes professional stuff, but generally everything they write is promoting something. So wish someone who reads Chinese could verify. Certainly the technical parts of the article would need much work if it is to stay. W Nowicki (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2011 (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.