Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MogileFS (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Ignoring single-purpose accounts Secret account 02:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MogileFS[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MogileFS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources found to establish notability of a software project. Attempt to redirect was rebuffed, probably because it isn't "owned" by Danga Interactive. prod was removed by an IP, indicating "MogileFS is widely used throughout the open startup community. 800,000 results in google for MogileFS." tedder (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The software is "plumbing" and relatively complex, so not talked much about (for a small website you're not going to use it), but it does have significant usage. It's likely you've been served files from a MogileFS system sometime in the last 24 hours. Google has about 800k pages if you search for 'mogilefs' Ask Bjørn Hansen (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than 900k pages if you search for 'tedder'. In other words, see WP:GHITS, which is why using a Google News search can be a better idea of how mogile is being discussed at a more academic level. Another way is to use a book search. Note of those are strong indicators of notability, but they may help. tedder (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I reverted the deletion once, the software is Open Source, is not a problem of Danga Interactive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuqui (talk • contribs)
  • What is needed too stop this harrasment?."No reliable sources found to establish notability of a software project.", "800,000 results in google for MogileFS". Where do you need this information displayed to keep this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuqui (talk • contribs) 07:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tuqui, please read Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Web search results don't confer notability, but reliable sources do. tedder (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: MogileFS is a great piece of software, we use it to store and deliver around 20 Million files via http ( fotocommunity.de / .com ... ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.208.234 (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 213.196.208.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— 115.240.80.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep: As tedder suggested above, if you do a google book search you find 4 O'Reilly books containing info on MogileFS. Some of this info might be properly inserted into the article. It's an emerging technology, but notable in its use in the open source community and startups. I allow that I could be proved wrong in the future if it flops at this point, but with momentum still building at this stage, it seems premature to remove the article. I'd advise revisiting in a year or two. Yoak (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-consumer software. There may be reliable sources in the news archives hits, but just about everything is in Chinese or Japanese, and I cannot tell. Books results yield only trivial mentions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's not the quantity, but the quality of the google results? Searches for Tedder brings up anything with that common word in it. All MogileFS results are on topic. These is a talk or article exhibiting MogileFS every few months. One as recent as a few days ago, here: http://blogs.sun.com/PhilippeJulio/entry/mogilefs_architecture - Also worth noting is typing "MogileFS" into google brings up a sponsored ad for "maxiscale", so some company feels like its product is related enough to leech off of its popularity. Oh, here's another: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=912116 7 days ago. I think it's also worth noting that by comparison, memcached has few google news hits, few (but growing) book mentions, but runs behind nearly *everything* we do on the web, including this. What few mentions it does get are significant since it's a valuable piece of architecture, instead of a hot end-user trend. Finally, I give you a link from Amazon Web Services bragging about having convinced a small company to pay them money other than use MogileFS: http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/37signals/ (which is missleading, as they use both?) Thank you :) Dormando (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC) (note that my account will probably be reused. I've just never registered before. Not noting as single-purpose).[reply]
  • Keep: p. 253 , chapter 9 of "Building Scalable Websites" by Cal Henderson mentions it as a way to abstract data storage. barce (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 8 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MogileFS_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069211475"