Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual organization (grid computing)

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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual organization (grid computing)

[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)

Does not appear to be notable. Only 2 references which together do not convey notability. ~~, both old, and one reference is a powerpoint~~ Nowa (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are we reading the same article? The two sources in the article are both scholarly papers; "The anatomy of the grid: enabling scalable virtual organizations", and "Virtual Organization Support within a Grid-Wide Operating System". Neither is a powerpoint and neither is "old" whatever that is meant to mean. They date to 2001 and 2008, and in any case, age does not detract from notability—Notability is not temporary. Besides which numerous other papers have been published discussing this subject, including numerous papers within the last two years. And if that is not enough, there are whole books written on the subject; [1][2][3]. Please do WP:BEFORE before nominating any more articles. SpinningSpark 14:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the updated link to the first reference. The old link was no longer active. When I Googled the title, it took me to a powerpoint presentation. I've updated the article with the new link.--Nowa (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two scholarly sources provide significant coverage of the subject, and the date of the source does not matter perWP:NTEMP. Also, a WP:BEFORE search reveals numerous scholarly sources including books on the subject. It appears that the required WP:BEFORE searches have not been done. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a technology concept with encyclopedic significance. I could propose merging it with another article, but as it is, it is not doing any harm and a merger won't have the benefit of brining its target article closer to standalone completeness. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:47, 28 September 2019 (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.