Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boot File System

Boot File System

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

I'm not convinced that this single operating system feature meets WP:GNG. I can't find sources for it either, outside the homepages of the few enthusiasts that wrote Linux drivers to it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't care, I'm only interested in the Be File System, so as long as BFS is kept disambiguated… --Mmu man (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of file systems or delete. I only see trivial mentions scattered throughout reliable sources (example). I prefer a redirect over deletion so that readers can still find information about where it's used and supported. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is very minor. It's spectacularly uninteresting. But it has also been a part of System V Unix for 30 years, and that's a big piece of computing development and history. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge it with UNIX System V or whatever is most relevant then? More than a stand-alone filesystem, it sounds like it's a part of the core OS that comes in the trick form of a filesystem. LjL (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a filesystem than it is an OS. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a joke, right? Of course it's a filesystem, what I'm saying is that it's part of an OS and for other OS's the same kind of part wouldn't typically be implemented as a filesystem. At any rate, if you prefer this non-notable article to be deleted instead of merged with the relevant article...

If was a joke it would have had "Bazinga" after it.

Merging it to System V would improve neither coverage of this topic, not coverage of System V. Especially so as that's a huge scope to try and fit into an article and so space there really is precious (this is unusual at WP). Space for this article is plentiful, and the topic is basically notable (albeit a minority interest). So we should keep it, and keep it separate. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, then if it's notable, we'll surely see secondary sources coming for it and the issue will become moot. LjL (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also add that being "part" of something "big" for many years doesn't by itself make something notable, otherwise we could legitimately have separate articles about single source code lines of Unix. We don't and we shouldn't. So your argument for keeping, whether or not there are other ones, is invalid. LjL (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]