Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart File System

Smart File System

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

I can find no reliable, third-party sources that cover this filesystem in any depth. Fails WP:GNG. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a widely-used filesystem on AmigaOS, and the default filesystem in MorphOS. Maybe we can't expect it to be documented by very major computer science books, but nonetheless it has the same standing as the plethora Amiga and non-Amiga filesystems that are documented on this encyclopedia. LjL (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LjL: Then please help save if by finding sources that satisfy the WP:GNG criteria. I agree with Qwertyus that notability is not established — the only sources in the article are primary sources and not independent. The article has had a {{Refimprove}} tag since July 2009. -- intgr [talk] 12:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now cited a couple of books about some statements in the article. LjL (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in Digital Image Forensics is a single sentence. The coverage in Computer Forensics is a bit better, but still only an entry in an exhaustive listing of file systems (though I guess it hints at real-world use). Is merging to MorphOS an option? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find that makes logical sense. The filesystem wasn't created on or for MorphOS, and it is still in use on AmigaOS (and IIRC AROS, it just so happens to have been chosen as the default filesystem for MorphOS after being made open source. And again, do we need, what, a book written entirely about the topic of SFS for this article to warrant staying? LjL (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's a fair point. What we need is significant coverage in multiple third-party sources. Aren't their any Amiga mags or books that cover file systems? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many of the file systems listed in Comparison of file systems have few independent published sources available. File systems developed in academia or for major commercial computers get written about publicly. Other file systems produced by companies are documented internally. They aren't usually written about in consumer magazines.

File systems are notable as components of notable systems and an important part of a system's historical development. See also Amiga Old File System, Amiga Fast File System, and Professional File System for the Amiga which would also have to be deleted. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD talks a bunch about notability, but the underlying policy behind all this is verifiability; if there are enough third-party sources to be able to verify an article, that should be considered notability enough (and this is pretty much exactly what WP:GNG says!), and if there aren't, you'll never be able to write a verifiable article and thus it should be deleted. Seeing the conversation above made me fear that the article couldn't be verified (a one-sentence mention isn't really enough), but although some of the existing citations are dubious, there seems to be enough valid ones around that it's possible to write a verifiable article (perhaps a shorter one than currently, though). --ais523 06:42, 3 October 2015 (U T C)

Notability is not the same thing as verifiability and the two should not be confused. In short, notability is the requirement for inclusion of a subject. Verifiability is the threshold for inclusion of any content within an article. A non-notable article does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia, even if the content in it is verifiable. Swarm ♠ 06:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm seeing a lot of keep votes and very few sources. If there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources, then the article should probably be redirected or merged somewhere. You don't inherit notability from your parent operating system. Otherwise, we'd have an entire encyclopedia full of Linux kernel miscellany. Or, at least, it would be even worse than what we do have. The problem is that the Amiga has been dead for 20 years. I'm not even sure where to start looking for sources, but there may be something useful on Google Books. My searches didn't really turn up much there. This could probably be redirected to list of file systems if no in-depth sources are found. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is notability based on how long something has been 'dead'? Even the article about ext2 (the Linux filesystem) doesn't have this plethora of non-primary sources, while now the article about Amiga's OFS has been tagged as one-source by the editor who proposed this AfD. The article about the MINIX file system also has only one third-party source, while funnily enough, the other two sources are Andrew Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds. Am I proposing that all these filesystems be considered for turning into oblivion from Wikipedia? Hell no. They are all pretty relevant, even if lengthy features in magazines or whatnot have not been pinpointed. But if nothing else, I will try to go for consistency on this encyclopedia if it is decided that only some roughly-equally-as-documented filesystems are not worthy of articles. LjL (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the check; I just added some secondary sources to MINIX file system (and removed Torvalds's autobiography). Regarding Amiga Old File System: that article has only one source, and I'd like to see more, but I'm not suggesting it be deleted because if what the article states can be corroborated, this should be a perfectly notable file system. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a general guidelines, I would agree that notability isn't inherited from a parent entity. But part of an enterprise like Wikipedia is a certain level of completeness. If I can find out every release date of Amiga and a changelog on that page, but not get any detail about a file system that ran on it, something is wrong. I would agree to a proposal to cut back some of the needlessly gory detail on the Amiga page and merge things like this article in, but the content on this page is worth keeping around and is in keeping with the other topics in this area.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While my vote is also to keep, I disagree that it would be practical to merge this with Amiga, as if we put every relevant filesystem there, that article would become quite a mess. Independent article is right in my opinion. LjL (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass notability criteria, and searches turned up nothing to suggest it does. Arguments to keep above, while passionate and well-thought out, are not policy based. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The requirement for policy-based arguments merely represents the greater community consensus. A local consensus that is not rooted in community consensus cannot be interpreted as a valid consensus. So, while a clear majority are in favor of keeping, I don't see policy-based arguments in response to the policy-based arguments in favor of deletion. Those in favor of keeping need to make a better argument or their comments may be discarded. Swarm ♠ 06:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 06:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that since "a clear majority is in favor of keeping", and the current state of thing is that the article exists, there is no consensus to delete. Given that, I think at this point you're twisting process, and it's interesting that other filesystem-related articles that were AfD'd were hastily deleted (even though they were receiving sources and improvements), this one is being hastily... relisted. --LjL (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]