Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GridRPC

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. Sandstein 20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GridRPC

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

While extensive in detail, I don't see any indication that this is actually a notable process. While it was standardized in 2011, there doesn't seem to be independent sources that shows its notability. Looking for sources, books like this one from 2007 and others seem more like other symposiums and technical workshops with more details on implementation without a clear indication of its actual use. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but feel free to trim this article down extensively). GScholar indicates that the paper "Overview of GridRPC: A remote procedure call API for Grid computing" has received 303 citations. Among these are papers by (academic) users as well as implementers. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CS is not my area of expertise, but @Qwertyus: I'll note that in general we count not citation to an academic article discussing a concept, but mentions of said concept. And that said, I do see it discussed in a book at Lucio Grandinetti (15 November 2005). Grid Computing: The New Frontier of High Performance Computing: The New Frontier of High Performance Computing. Elsevier. pp. 41–. ISBN 978-0-08-046146-5., and I see at least other non-trivial book mention, so I'd be leaning to keep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: in previous AfD discussions, high citation counts has been taken as a sign (if not definitive proof) of notability. The very first citing paper calls GridRPC "The most known" [sic], alongside OmniRPC, of RPC standards for scientific computing and mentions two implementations. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Qwertyus: You make a compelling argument, Qwertyus. I'll wait for a 3O, but if it is also an argument for keeping, do ping me and I'll consider withdrawing this nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Qwertyus's comments regarding citation count. clpo13_(talk) 18:29, 29 November 2015 (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.