Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Transaction Processing

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 redirect to Transaction processing#Implementations. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.