Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MDB (Linux)

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 delete. CSD G5, creation by a banned user. T. Canens (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MDB (Linux)

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

Nothing beyond a bare assertion of notability - the references given don't mention "MDB" at all, the external links are primary sources -- the Google Code page and a press release. Non-notable and unreferenced. ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE AND MAKE REDIRECT - the same argument can be used for KGDB since this article has NOT ONE SINGLE secondary or third party reference, unlike MDB which has news articles (dozens) from third party sources referenced. Given this rationale, none of the kernel debugger articles meet Wikipedia's requirements except MDB, which is not reasonable or lucid as an argument. There are sufficient sources to keep the article. The general idea of free software and kernel development makes most references to kernel debuggers contained within the development lists of linux itself. in such a case, its unlikely a kernel debugger for Linux would be mentioned outside of these sources and its the one case I think use of even primary sources and secondary sources may be valid and defensible since Kernel debugging tools are contained within dicussions of Linux development itself. I have reviewed the vandalism by a single purpose "attack" account which vandalized the article in question, don't understand this persons rationale at all after reviewing the comments. Linuxmdb (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I think this article should be merged into KGDB and/or Open Source NetWare. I reviewed the KGDB article and both have the same problem. I think a merge is a better choice. Linuxmdb (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the contents which have sources into the Timpanogas Research Group article which has tons of secondary and third party references. I think this as a standalone article does have some challenges but it certainly fits well in the TRG article. The KGDB article has the same problems but I guess that's a problem to solve on another day. Also, should keep the stub as a redirect to Timpanogas for anyone who is looking to download this software and use it. Linuxmdb (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments : (1) then maybe KGDB needs to be sent to Articles for Deletion as well. (2) By no means are there sufficient sources to keep this article. The three links given in "References" don't even mention MDB! The other two "sources" are a link to the Google Code page and a press release. There is no indication that anybody except the author has taken note of MDB -- the very basis of the lack of notability argument that I believe dooms this article. (3) Just because somebody has a (probably unhealthy) fixation on deleting text suspected to originate with Jeff Merkey doesn't make this article any more notable. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4187 references on google to "merkey debugger". MDB is a name for the NetWare kernel debugger. The articles discuss the open source netware OS and debugger. Maybe you should read through the materials rather than glacing at the headlines? Linuxmdb (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those google references simply point to the author's announcement e-mails on various lists? Do any of the google hits mention anyone actually using the debugger? If we take google hits as a substitute for notability, then can we add "litigious *******" to the SCO article? Pfagerburg (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Neither the article text, nor the references proffered in the article, support notability. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Maybe I'm a sucker for Any computing articles- but the debugger itself is notable, although it probably should be asserted better. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 28 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.