Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gameframe

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Re-write and clarification as a proper noun is a vast improvement (non-admin closure) Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gameframe[edit]

Gameframe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research coining a new phrase. The term is used elsewhere, but not as this article defines it. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you think that this term has already been used elsewhere, feel free to provide a disambiguation page. And for what concerns the definition, there is a refererence to the IEEE magazine which is a most reliable source. IEEE make use of this term. -- Akolyth (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)

I don't mean that it's been used elsewhere on wikipedia, I was talking about sources. When I ran an internet search the term is used many times, but never in the way you describe it in this article. It's called a neologism. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 11:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Again, feel free to provide all the articles which you consider necessary. But for what concerns the use of the term gameframe, you only need to follow the links provided. Moreover, when I run a Google search I obtain a large number of results, that refer to mainframe computing. -- Akolyth (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)

Provide what articles? What are you talking about? How about instead of requiring me to provide articles showing the subject isn't notable (bizarre) why don't you provide all these sources you keep talking about which apparently back up your position? Of the two sources you used in the article, only one of them even contains the term "gameframe". Remember that the onus is on you to back up what you write, not others. Oh, and you can't !vote twice, so I struck your last one. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 11:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are four links provided substantiating the article's use of the term Gameframe. And what's more: http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/to-probe-further-the-gameframe-guild (which is given in the article) provides ample links to resources on Gameframes. Moreover, before you doubt any IEEE sources you should be aware what IEEE is: IEEE is one of the leading standards-making organizations in the world. Thus, your criticism is rather insubstantial. -- Akolyth (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)

Hi Akolyth. You should only recommend "keep" or "delete" (etc.) in bold once - have a look at the instructions on how to comment at deletion discussions. I've gone ahead and struck your latest "keep" recommendation. (Note that you're free to make as many comments as you want, however.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to IBM System z Keep (see below). We shouldn't have an article on this term per our policy on how to treat neologisms, but there's no reason we can't mention the term in another article, if we make it clear that it is not standard English. (This would probably be done by using quotations.) From these sources the second of these sources[1][2] it seems like the term "gameframe" is only used to refer to the IBM System z, so that would seem the best article to merge to. As this is a specific product, I think we also ought to remove Akolyth's mention of "gameframe" from the Mainframe article, unless anyone can find evidence that the use of the term is a more general one across the mainframe industry. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Stradivarius, I appreciate that you wish to keep the text. Although your idea of merging is constructive, I think that the article should remain an article of its own as the underlying architectural concept is somewhat universal. And as you have mentioned the mainframe industry: there's only System z left. IBM are nowadays the only mainframe manufacturer. -- Akolyth (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)
    Ah, thanks for telling me that - now that you come to mention it, I can't think of any other mainframe makers who are still around. Still, it doesn't change the policy text about neologisms, and we have to base all our decisions on Wikipedia policy here. If there are any arguments that run counter to Wikipedia policies, then the closing admin is free to ignore them at their discretion. On a related note, you might also want to check out the essay about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Stradivarius, one should note that the term Gameframe is used by the IEEE (and many others) since 2007. Therefore, it can hardly be considered a neologism as it it no longer new. And what's more: the architectural amalgamation of a supercomputer with a mainframe is a thrilling concept since 2007. Therefore, I still prefer to leave it an article of its own.-- Akolyth (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)

In English please. Linking to different parts of the IEEE website does not constitute separate sources - IEEE is one source. Also, whilst you may fail to see the need to provide several different sources, it is a requirement of the general notability guideline. Also, I think you'd do well to read the link about neologisms posted above, as it describes how secondary sources which talk about the phrase (rather than merely use it) are required to justify a stand-alone article. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basalisk, I have now added a Master's Thesis. But the lot of the sources are in German because system z is mainly developed in Germany. Moreover, there are four more (English) references from three different sources which is more than enough. -- Akolyth (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)

Excellent work, thanks. I still think the information is better merged into the parent article, but I think the sources you've found are great. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find the terms 'gameframe', 'game' or 'Taikodom' in that thesis. What does frame offloading have to do with this article? -Rushyo Talk 20:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to have a look at p.19ff -- Akolyth (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC+1)
!! Well that's me well and truly taught to not rely on Adobe's search capabilities... -Rushyo Talk 15:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with IBM System z - Feel this fails WP:NEO. "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term" -Rushyo Talk 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that per "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." we could consider a rename. Seems a little pointless though, when it'd sit fine in IBM System z. -Rushyo Talk 20:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One shouldn't misunderstand the Gameframe as just a new model of System z. In fact, it is a hybrid platform that comprises both system z and Cell blades. Its hybrid H/W architecture is the key element, thus amalgamating feautures of high compute power and high data throughput at highest reliability. This is a new architectural concept of its own. Therefore, it is not entirely appropriate to subsume the gameframe only under System z when the Cell processors are an integral part, too. I shall add a paragraph on this to the article so that it becomes a little clearer as, obviously, some misunderstandings have occurred. -- Akolyth (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC+1)

  • Keep in light of new sources and explanation of term as proper, and not common, noun (negating WP:NEO arguments). -Rushyo Talk 15:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have changed my !vote to "keep" above. I was confused by the introduction to the article, which claims that "gameframe" is a term, but I see now that it is actually the name of a project by IBM, and so counts as a proper noun, and is not subject to our policy on neologisms. I was also stumped by a weird bug that meant that I only received Google News results in Japanese (I have a Japanese IP). After having found a workaround for this, I found quite a few sources about the Gameframe project, e.g. these: [3][4][5]. Coupled with the book sources I listed above, I think this is enough for the article to be kept. It could definitely do with some cleaning up, however. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the introductory sentence and polished the article a little bit as was asked for by Mr. Stradivarius. I hope things are now a little clearer. -- Akolyth (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC+1)

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gameframe&oldid=1136111919"