Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aufs

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 keep. no censensus for deletion JForget 12:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aufs

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

Non-notable fork of barely notable alternative file system, no sources claim notability. Sources are not independent, they are documentation, blogs, forums, manuals. Miami33139 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom RP459 (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, used in slax, Knoppix, Xandros and Arch Linux. That seems to make it notable. And how exacty this arch linux changelog in not "independent"? how is third-party documentation and manuals "not independent". I honestly don't see any reason for deletion --SF007 (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is used by multiple major distros and the sources attest to this. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 21:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the sourcing stays as it is, there's no proof of notability. Inclusion in Linux distros does not mean something is notable by our standards. Fences&Windows 21:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UnionFS, as it's a version of that filesystem. I can find no reliable source coverage of this. Fences&Windows 21:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a number of books that discussed Aufs in a non-trivial manner. [1] [2] [3] and it is also included with Debian Linux [4] which actually has been and continues to be used as one notability indicator for open source software. While I'm not opposed to a merge, I think the books I linked above and others that Google Books turns up is enough to show that this filesystem does indeed meet the notability guideline. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The second and third examples in your list are perfect examples of trivial coverage. One sentence that says the Asus eee PC (which of them?) uses this Aufs is absolutely not a source showing notablity. The first, documenting how Knoppix uses Aufs, is a marginal source. Miami33139 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not agree with you and I do not feel these AfD nominations have been in good faith. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "700 and 900 series Linux Eee PCs come installed with a file system known as UnionFS (later Eee PCs use Aufs which is based on UnionFS with some improvements). Asus uses UnionFS and Aufs as part of its F9 recovery system." Two sentences in the documentation of two computers from one mid-level OEM is the very definition of a trivial source!! Miami33139 (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SF007, Grandmartin11, and Tothwolf. I think it passes WP:N. Don't forget the interwikis, too. --Mokhov (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interwiki links, as copies of Wikipedia, are not reliable sources to show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2009 (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.