Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate 3
- 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 Speedy keep. Nomination seems to have been withdrawn and the Deletion review is still running, while the article has just survived two AfD's earlier this week. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking my promise (and well, there really aren't any guidelines/policies on when it is appropriate to renominate an article), but as it is difficult to get the discussion noticed on the talk page and it certainly needs more participants, I am hereby nominating it again. And please take this seriously.
The article is redundant as its contents are already in the Architecture section of the Linux kernel article and the notability of the debate is rather weak, more of a curiousity than encyclopedical material. msikma says that the article can be expanded with their respective views, and sure, that is true, but pros and cons for microkernels/monolithic kernels are already discussed in their respective articles. Having it in this article too would just cause further redundancy. And, please see it for what it is: a discussion/debate (or flamewar) on a mailing list.
Suggested action: Delete or redirect to Linux kernel.
Lifting some earlier arguments/comments from other wikipedians:
- "The decision was to keep the content, not to keep it as a separate article; most of the people suggesting keep did not rule out a merge. "Could be expanded" is not a reason for keeping an article separated, since it can be expanded even if merged." -- Tizio, on the article's talk page.
- "Should there be article about debate on what kind of configuration management system is the best for the kernel development? Debate over filesystems? GPL3 vs GPL2 ? On proper threading implementation? Debate about binary drivers or other zillion of debates? Lunixcruft." -- Pavel Vozenilek, from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tanenbaum-Torvalds_debate
- "I usually prefer merged articles (as I prefer long, monolithic articles rather than fragmented articles) but I don't see any reason for a merger here" -- msikma, on the article's talk page. (Note the conflict of interest, msikma created the article.)
Memmke 09:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep This is getting REALLY annoying. This one is still at deletion review and you bring it here again? MartinDK 09:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone told me to take it there, so I did, but it was apparently not the right place for that. And please, don't try to avoid serious discussion. Memmke 09:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, you took it back here after your nomination failed. Then we told you to take it to deletion review in the strongest possible terms without blocking you for disrupting Wikipedia. We assumed good faith and that you didn't know any better. Now it is still being debated at deletion review and you try to bring it back here? I don't have to argue with disruptive editors. MartinDK 09:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it disruptive? It wasn't sufficiently debated in the first debate. And no, it's not still being debated at deletion review, and I tried taking a discussion on the article's talk page, but that only led to a pointless one on one. Memmke 09:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are being disruptive by abusing AfD to prove a point. The closing admin determined that the subject had been debated enough for him to make a decision. Then you take it back here and the closing admin sends you to deletion review. The case at deletion review is still open. Expect this one to be closed very soon once an admin drops by.MartinDK 09:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not being disruptive, this is what AfD is for. While the deletion review case is still formally open, there's no active discussion going on. Memmke 09:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are being disruptive by abusing AfD to prove a point. The closing admin determined that the subject had been debated enough for him to make a decision. Then you take it back here and the closing admin sends you to deletion review. The case at deletion review is still open. Expect this one to be closed very soon once an admin drops by.MartinDK 09:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it disruptive? It wasn't sufficiently debated in the first debate. And no, it's not still being debated at deletion review, and I tried taking a discussion on the article's talk page, but that only led to a pointless one on one. Memmke 09:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, you took it back here after your nomination failed. Then we told you to take it to deletion review in the strongest possible terms without blocking you for disrupting Wikipedia. We assumed good faith and that you didn't know any better. Now it is still being debated at deletion review and you try to bring it back here? I don't have to argue with disruptive editors. MartinDK 09:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone told me to take it there, so I did, but it was apparently not the right place for that. And please, don't try to avoid serious discussion. Memmke 09:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - classic case of criterion 5 at WP:SK applying here. There are articles which are speedily kept a couple of months after a previous AfD closure, so why should this one keep turning up every few days? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not renominating it on a "regular schedule", I am merely continuing what I feel wasn't sufficiently discussed (and what the closing admin thought can hardly be considered consensus). Memmke 09:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And to turn the tables: You two are effectively disrupting wikipedia by disrupting this attempt to discussion. Memmke 09:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The first nomination was made on the 14th and closed on the 19th of this month. The second was made on the 20th ("just over 12 hours" after the first one, according to one comment) and closed on the same day. Today being the 23rd, I guess we could say that the 3 day interval is proof of restraint. The point about an AfD is that, by running for 5 days as the first one did, it creates enough time for a consensus to be reached. That the consensus doesn't march with what you want it to be is obvious, but it's a consensus nevertheless. Neither of the closing admins said that there wasn't consensus, and in fact in the second instance it was made quite clear that there was consensus. I'm not disrupting an attempt at discussion, either. What I'm doing is suggesting that further discussion be deferred until such time as it can gainfully be done. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once he is sent off to Deletion Review there is a 5 day interval no matter what. Criterion 5 works as a further argument in this case. This is surreal... MartinDK 10:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought there was probably a further issue in there, but I haven't followed it as closely as some, so I was only going on the frequent appearances on the AfD guestlist. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't believe you guys. Avoiding/skipping a discussion because of some miniscule technicalities. *sighs* Memmke 10:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not quite that. It's a little more complex. First and foremost, the first AfD ran for 5 days. That's the length these things are meant to run so that a consensus can be arrived at. A consensus was arrived at and the AfD closed. It wasn't what you wanted the consensus to be, but that's the nature of the beast. Since then, to my knowledge you've opened another AfD on the same topic 12 hours later, taken the matter to DRV where it's meant to stay for 5 days regardless of the depth of the debate and then opened a third AfD. The topic may well be non-notable, but the idea is that the consensus back on the 19th was that it should be kept and there's little or no reason to assume that the consensus 4 days later is going to be much different. In 4 months, it could well be so. It's like constantly asking "are we there yet?" on a car trip. We weren't there a few minutes ago, so we probably aren't there yet either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But most of the opinions adding up to the first AfD's consensus was based upon uninformed and WP:ILIKEIT "arguments". Memmke 10:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)~[reply]
- [edit conflict]That may well be the case, but the admin who closed the discussion saw that as consensus to keep. Now, if we assume that the arguments were based on a faulty premise, you've got two options. The first is to wait a few months for the smoke to clear and then nominate the article again in the hope that people won't make the same mistakes as they did the first time round. The second is to go to WP:DRV and let that run its course. You've taken that option, as is shown by the post at DRV timestamped earlyish yesterday morning. Now all you need to do is to sit back and wait for everyone else to discuss it there. The fact that, 24 hours after the fact, you haven't got what you wanted out of DRV is immaterial. That's where it is currently, so opening another AfD on it isn't going to help matters (as I think you can see here). Again, if the consensus at DRV goes against you, the solution is to grin and bear it - and maybe wait a longer time than 72 hours before you re-open discussion. There are times when we all don't like the consensus of the community, but the point about Wikipedia is that we have to abide by it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From my point of view, it's anything but "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" to wait another four month for something that could be dealt with today. Memmke 10:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is being dealt with today; we're keeping it.--Prosfilaes 10:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hardly being dealt with, only technicalities around it. Memmke 10:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is being dealt with today; we're keeping it.--Prosfilaes 10:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But most of the opinions adding up to the first AfD's consensus was based upon uninformed and WP:ILIKEIT "arguments". Memmke 10:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)~[reply]
- They aren't technicalities. People don't like defending their articles over and over, and many of them barely tolerate AfD at best. Letting people know that once they've justified their article's existence, they won't have to worry about it for another six months or so, is important so they don't feel under attack. Furthermore, AfD is a mess, and reducing the number of articles nominated that have passed once helps fix at least part of that.--Prosfilaes 10:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, six months it is then. I don't enjoy this "bite the disruptive fool" thing anyway. Memmke 10:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless, of course, someone man enough steps in to take this discussion. Memmke 10:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, six months it is then. I don't enjoy this "bite the disruptive fool" thing anyway. Memmke 10:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not quite that. It's a little more complex. First and foremost, the first AfD ran for 5 days. That's the length these things are meant to run so that a consensus can be arrived at. A consensus was arrived at and the AfD closed. It wasn't what you wanted the consensus to be, but that's the nature of the beast. Since then, to my knowledge you've opened another AfD on the same topic 12 hours later, taken the matter to DRV where it's meant to stay for 5 days regardless of the depth of the debate and then opened a third AfD. The topic may well be non-notable, but the idea is that the consensus back on the 19th was that it should be kept and there's little or no reason to assume that the consensus 4 days later is going to be much different. In 4 months, it could well be so. It's like constantly asking "are we there yet?" on a car trip. We weren't there a few minutes ago, so we probably aren't there yet either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't believe you guys. Avoiding/skipping a discussion because of some miniscule technicalities. *sighs* Memmke 10:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought there was probably a further issue in there, but I haven't followed it as closely as some, so I was only going on the frequent appearances on the AfD guestlist. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once he is sent off to Deletion Review there is a 5 day interval no matter what. Criterion 5 works as a further argument in this case. This is surreal... MartinDK 10:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The first nomination was made on the 14th and closed on the 19th of this month. The second was made on the 20th ("just over 12 hours" after the first one, according to one comment) and closed on the same day. Today being the 23rd, I guess we could say that the 3 day interval is proof of restraint. The point about an AfD is that, by running for 5 days as the first one did, it creates enough time for a consensus to be reached. That the consensus doesn't march with what you want it to be is obvious, but it's a consensus nevertheless. Neither of the closing admins said that there wasn't consensus, and in fact in the second instance it was made quite clear that there was consensus. I'm not disrupting an attempt at discussion, either. What I'm doing is suggesting that further discussion be deferred until such time as it can gainfully be done. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, abuse of process as per BigHaz. Vizjim 10:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep; just because you think it wasn't sufficiently discussed, does not mean you renominate it. --Prosfilaes 10:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as per the others. --Terence Ong (C | R) 10:18, 23 November 2006 (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.