|
|
| Line 38: |
Line 38: |
|
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 06:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --> |
|
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 06:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --> |
|
*'''Delete''' Notability doesn't appear to be proven or provable imo. [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 09:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
*'''Delete''' Notability doesn't appear to be proven or provable imo. [[User:Minkythecat|Minkythecat]] ([[User talk:Minkythecat|talk]]) 09:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> |
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> |
- 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. Shimeru 06:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moose File System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
UnremarkableNon notable open source project. Sourceforge files list shows very few downloads and not a lot of google hits. Nothing to show WP:notability. Article is unreferenced. A similar article was PRODed last year named MooseFS - seems this was set up in its place and was missed at the time. Disputed Prod. Since the prod, a reference to a Polish magazine article in a pdf hosted on the projects own website has been added. noq (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I repeat here what I said before:
1) Yes, the article was PRODed once before. That's, because it was incomplete, I was new to Wikipedia and did not know how to write a proper article. Once I learned about the sandbox I have created a new article within it and left the old one die. The new one has been released out of the sandbox when ready.
2) Sourceforge may not show lots of downloads. Sourceforge page is not the primary download area. Stable releases are downloadable from project official web site.
3) I wonder what makes you think it is an unremarkable project. At the moment there is very few open-source distributed file systems suitable for commercial datacenter workloads. GlusterFS is one. Ceph is great, but not production ready just yet. Lustre does not count, because it lacks some features considered mandatory for datacenter. The same goes for PVFS and Hadoop. There are some others, but they are mostly not worth mentioning - they are either incomplete or in a different category. Im not involved in propagation or development of MooseFS, I am just a user. And I think that MooseFS is currently the most advanced file system in that class - along with GlusterFS.
You are right though that the article is missing some neccesary elements, notably the references section needs expanding. I'll do that as soon as possible. As to the "reliable source", I'm not qiute sure what is considered a "reliable source" when it comes to an open source software project, especially when it does not have academical origins. Anyway I hope the article in Linux magazine is "reliable" enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ales-76 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A single reference hosted on the projects website is unlikely to be enough. My look through google did not find any significant coverage hence bringing the article here. noq (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is hosted on the projects website, correct. But the article is from reliable source and it is not otherwise freely accessible - one would have to buy or borrow printed issue of the Linux Magazine. Hosting articles about a product is not uncommon practice, by example semiconductor manufacturers quite often offer free downloadable issue of Microprocessor report (which is otherwise damn expensive), when it is about their product. There is nothing wrong with that. If one reference from notable source is not enough than too bad, but at the moment I cannot provide more. Hopefully in couple of months the situation will be different, MooseFS just got into FreeBSD ports so I guess the number of users is growing. And by the way, Google shows over 30000 hits for MooseFS. I could expand the article with links to some web resources like blogs and such, but I guess these won't be considered reliable, and in deed the content is often sketchy and unmethodical. In any case, it seems to me that the only thing valid from the original claim for removal is that there is only one reference. I admit that, and I do understand that editors of Wikipedia act on good will, so that the content of every article is backed up by a reliable source. However, I think that the Wikipedia audience has more to loose than gain by removing the article, since era of distributed storage is just coming and people come here to get the picture, to find out what it is about and to see what options they have. Ales-76 (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you set google to return 100 results, you will find that while the initial page has thousands of hits, it only returns something over 400. Looking through those nothing stood out as notable. noq (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When did we start requiring that subjects be "remarkable" too? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: One source with significant coverage isn't enough and I can't find anymore. Joe Chill (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comment: I think one reputable source with significant coverage would be enough to establish notability of a file system. On the one hand, Linux Magazine is apparently reputable; on the other, the source's author Mariusz Gądarowski appears to be affiliated with MooseFS creators Gemius SA and Jakub Kruszona-Zawadzki.[1] Given that I can't read the article, it's difficult to reconcile these factors. And – I also can't find any more sources. --Pnm (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep I came to this article to learn about MooseFS, with the benefit of the same NPOV standards that are available for its competitors. If someone is willing to keep the article up to date (one sign of a healthy project), then there is no reason to hide this information. Properly functioning distributed file systems are a rare breed, and the underlying data storage decision is a critical one for an organization; that makes this is a notable and relevant project, whether or not an organization decides to use it. Meanwhile, Pnm discounts Linux Magazine's standard operating procedure too quickly, while also complaining about the language; these are not reasons for deletion. - Rgrant (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been thinking about this. I'm ambivalent about the deletion. Seems like a useful article, but I can't verify that it meets the "requirements." --Pnm (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:13, 10 June 2010 (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.
