Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Transaction Processing

Extreme Transaction Processing

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This seems like useless WP:FORK of Transaction processing that's little more the a description of term and would be better served if merged into that article. Especially since the sourcing is slim and it's not clear if this is really a separate thing from normal transaction processing outside of niche tech blogs. Adamant1 (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless someone wants to merge into Transaction processing. // Timothy :: talk 05:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable marketing buzzword; the one book reference appears to be self-published. The other references simply mention a definition by Gartner. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: Yes it is a useless WP:FORK of Transaction processing. -Hatchens (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transaction_processing#Implementations, where it is already mentioned. I agree that there isn't in-depth sourcing sufficient to meet GNG and associated underlying technologies, such write-back caching, are covered elsewhere. 82 hits in GScholar and book hits, including an O'Reilly text[1] show that the concept of XTP exists in the literature, however, and it is a plausible search term. Hence, per WP:ATD-R, redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF, WP:FORK I would not oppose a selective merge of the sources, then deletion outright. No use in a redirect. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With a multi-author article, merge pretty much requires a redirect to preserve attribution. What do you mean by "No use"? It doesn't look like a policy-based reason for avoiding a redirect on a topic you agree exists.. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]