Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/System bus model

System bus model

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

I PROD'ed this article last October, but it was contested. The reason given was: rm PROD - this is a variant on the Von Neumann architecture, and I found alot of books with it, not just two - it describes the standard configuration of an x86/68k/etc machine. A discussion subsequently took place at the article's talk page; Talk:System bus model. A merge to von Neumann architecture was proposed, but has not been carried out.

My rationale for deleting this article is basically the same as it was last year. There is no indication that its topic, the system bus model, is notable. My original rationale, is still as relevant today as it was then. I am of the opinion that the rebuttal of the editor who contested the PROD inadequatly addressed the concerns I outlined in the PROD rationale in two ways. Firstly, it was asserted that there was coverage; not shown that there was; either by stating how sources were found so it could be independently verified (in the PROD, I detailed how I looked for coverage), or by listing the sources themselves. Secondly, I get the impression that because the topic is associated with the von Neumann architecture, those opposing deletion are doing so on the basis that its notability is presumed and/or inherited. For the latter case, WP:NOTINHERITED sums up why it is not a good idea.

As previously mentioned, the article was proposed for merging. In practice, problems with articles that could be fixed by normal editing (which includes merging) should not be nominated for deletion. In my opinion, this article cannot be fixed by merging because its the coverage its topic has is trivial compared to that of the von Neumann architecture, which would result in undue weight if merged.

Lastly, the article is referenced to sources that are reliable, but does coverage of the article's topic in these sources meet WP:N's requirement of non-trivial coverage? I can only assess the first source, a book, since it is the only one that can be previewed at Google Books. In that book, coverage begins at the bottom of page 31, and resumes half-way down page 32 and ends shortly after. The amount of text on the topic is around one typically-sized paragraph. It is clear that the first source is not significant coverage of the topic. For something which claims to be an evolution of the von Neumann architecture, I expect there to be substaintial coverage. This was raised at the article's talk page, but no direct response was given. Rilak (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've put a lot of work and careful thought into this AfD. I wish that energy and intelligence could somehow be funneled into the articles in question. I apologize for dropping the ball on the merge. I still beleive this can be done sucessfully and at least one other editor has concurred. I will try to find time to do it. I'm confident that the WP:UNDUE and WP:N issues can be dealt with by the editors of Von Neumann architecture. As far as the AfD is concerned, I favor whatever approach most expeditiously gets rid of this article while salvaging anything of value. --Kvng (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete Without further researching the subject on other sources, let us first read the relevant sections of the references. The second reference of the article ([1]) starts its 1.4 The System Bus Model section, just after the 1.3 The Von Neumann Model section with the (page 5):"Although the von Neumann model prevails in modern computers, it has been streamlined.", which suggests that the so-called System bus model is the modern version of the Von Neumann model. The image on the article page is also a re-drawn copy of the "Figure 1-3 The system bus model of a computer system. [Contributed by Donald Chiarulli, Univ. Pittsburgh.]", page 5 from the same source. The term System bus model is only mentioned once in the first reference ([2]), inside the 1.7 Von Neumann Model section and before 1.8 Non-Von Neumann Model section, with "This architecture (ed. Von Neumann) has also been streamlined into what is currently called the system bus model" (page 32). This reference is published six years later than the other. We can conclude that these two references, both of which are published books about computer architecture, describes system bus model as a modern version of the Von Neumann model. Thus, merging the article into Von Neumann Model is plausible if it doesnt fail WP:WEIGHT.

When we check the web for other sources, we can see that the majority of the sources are direct copies from either of these two books (mostly the first) or from the course pages of the universities that use these books as the course textbooks. Some articles mention it (like [3]) but they either don't discuss it deeply or they're not directly related to the subject. This is (if I understand correctly) the main concern of the nominator per WP:GNG.

This lack of sources except these books (that are mainly used as textbooks) suggests that the term is in fact coined to address a general modern version of the Von Neumann model. The main reference describes the model further by (page 5-6): ""Most important to the system bus model, the communications among the components are by means of a shared pathway called the system bus, which is made up of the(..) the system bus is actually a group of individual busses classified by their function." The system bus page redirects to front-side bus, probably because of the sources like ([4]). There is an old discussion on the talk page which address the difference between two terms (Talk:Front-side_bus#System_Bus).

I think the article strongly needs {{expert-subject}}. Nimuaq (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I never challenged the existence of the system bus model. I challenge its notability and whether it would be due weight to merge it into von Neumann architecture. After all, the claim that the von Neumann architecture has been streamlined, and that the resulting streamlined version of it is called the system bus model, has only been shown to be supported (so far) by the two textbooks mentioned as references in the article, and their accompanying materials such as lecture presentations. Now, consider the amount of coverage the von Neumann architecture has received: two textbooks (including one whose coverage of the topic is a single paragraph) versus the 6,210 results Google Books found containing the term "von Neumann architecture" but without "system bus model".

Finally, regarding the IEEE Design and Test of Computers article, the term "system bus model" is referring to a behavioral model of the system bus. It is not claiming that it is an evolution of the von Neumann architecture. As I mentioned in my original PROD notice, there are far more instances where the term has been used to refer to a behavioral or electrical model of a system bus than what the article claims. Rilak (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you haven't challenged the existence, but rather challenged the notability, as I already stated above. I can also easily verify your finding of "more instances where the term has been used to refer to a behavioral or electrical model of a system bus" compared to the two sources (published books) above. I searched for the system bus (not the model) this time together with the Von Neumann architecture and found out that the majority of the book sources discuss the system bus, usually under Von Neumann architecture, with the same definition and the same structure of which the source of the article discusses the system bus model (one of the recent ones of the several examples here) Thus, I think the authors of the book ([5]) used the system bus model term to explain the system bus and the modern interpretation of the Von Neumann model in one section.

More than ten years after the books first edition, this model is still not widely discussed under that particular name, so I think you're right when you say it fails WP:GNG. For the merging articles, I -now- think that since all of the content the article offers is discussed under the system bus in numerous sources, rather than a merger, the relevant parts should either be moved to the article System bus or the page should be created with other particular sources, where a link can be created for the front-side bus article, for it might also refer to it. Nimuaq (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge although not totally clear what into what. Having system bus redirect into front-side bus is worse IMO. It ignores the first 35 years or so of computer architecture. I would say make a section in Von Neumann architecture, which now now stops in the 1950s. The developments between the 1950s and the PC-compatible era are missing. I would also support moving the System bus model info into system bus and adding the "glue". For example, should mention notable examples like the Omnibus of the PDP-8, the Unibus and Q-Bus of the PDP-11, Multibus, VMEbus etc. actually, Bus (computing) might the better place for this to go. The diagram is especially very nice and would like to resue it. I probably have some time to help if we reach a consensus. W Nowicki (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that would be fair. I've seen the image on a number of other books too, some of which are published before the main source of the System bus model. But I'm not sure about if its a common diagram (which can be attributed to common knowledge) or specially drawn since the source its taken says "Contributed by Donald Chiarulli, Univ. Pittsburgh.", as I explained above. The diagram is either first drawn by Donald Chiarulli or the authors did not have such a diagram and they couldn't draw it themselves. If its the latter, it is a bit odd since the authors of the book first used the term System bus model yet they cant draw that basic diagram and still need someone to contribute it for them. Nimuaq (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram is not up for deletion; it's not part of the article but an entry in the file namespace: [6]. The diagram is also incorrect. The CPU should be shown to contain an ALU, control unit, and registers. I agree that system bus should be turned into an article, but I don't think merging content from this article into there is a good idea since the content is very specific to the system bus model. Rilak (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only the introduction is specific to system bus model, the content in Communications section discusses the system bus like other sources: [7], [8]. I think those relevant sections can be easily merged into a separate article for the system bus. Nimuaq (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, the entire section in question is specific to the system bus model since the source it cites has that coverage for the purpose of discussing the system bus model. Quite frankly, I don't see any of redeeming qualities that you and Nowicki see in that section. The act of merging the content might be easy, but fixing up the content is not. The section contradicts itself. It says that the I/O bus is part of the system bus, and then it claims more sophisticated architectures have separate I/O buses. It also makes some claims which are quite questionable; such as the power bus being part of the system bus; and that the address bus can be used by the receiver to determine the transmitter (the command bus would be used instead for this purpose). I think starting anew; without the structural baggage of the section in question (the section was intended to talk about the system bus model; not system buses in general; and is structured according) would be preferable in regard to editing effort and the resulting quality. Rilak (talk) 08:10, 6 May 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, Sandstein 07:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]