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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 19:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Smart File System

Smart File System (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I can find no reliable, third-party sources that cover this filesystem in any depth. Fails WP:GNG. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 10:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This is a widely-used filesystem on AmigaOS, and the default filesystem in MorphOS. Maybe we can't expect it to be documented by very major computer science books, but nonetheless it has the same standing as the plethora Amiga and non-Amiga filesystems that are documented on this encyclopedia. LjL ( talk) 11:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  @ LjL: Then please help save if by finding sources that satisfy the WP:GNG criteria. I agree with Qwertyus that notability is not established — the only sources in the article are primary sources and not independent. The article has had a {{ Refimprove}} tag since July 2009. -- intgr  [talk] 12:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  I have now cited a couple of books about some statements in the article. LjL ( talk) 16:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  The coverage in Digital Image Forensics is a single sentence. The coverage in Computer Forensics is a bit better, but still only an entry in an exhaustive listing of file systems (though I guess it hints at real-world use). Is merging to MorphOS an option? QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 17:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  I do not find that makes logical sense. The filesystem wasn't created on or for MorphOS, and it is still in use on AmigaOS (and IIRC AROS, it just so happens to have been chosen as the default filesystem for MorphOS after being made open source. And again, do we need, what, a book written entirely about the topic of SFS for this article to warrant staying? LjL ( talk) 17:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  Ok, that's a fair point. What we need is significant coverage in multiple third-party sources. Aren't their any Amiga mags or books that cover file systems? QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 17:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Many of the file systems listed in Comparison of file systems have few independent published sources available. File systems developed in academia or for major commercial computers get written about publicly. Other file systems produced by companies are documented internally. They aren't usually written about in consumer magazines.

File systems are notable as components of notable systems and an important part of a system's historical development. See also Amiga Old File System, Amiga Fast File System, and Professional File System for the Amiga which would also have to be deleted. StarryGrandma ( talk) 06:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep AfD talks a bunch about notability, but the underlying policy behind all this is verifiability; if there are enough third-party sources to be able to verify an article, that should be considered notability enough (and this is pretty much exactly what WP:GNG says!), and if there aren't, you'll never be able to write a verifiable article and thus it should be deleted. Seeing the conversation above made me fear that the article couldn't be verified (a one-sentence mention isn't really enough), but although some of the existing citations are dubious, there seems to be enough valid ones around that it's possible to write a verifiable article (perhaps a shorter one than currently, though). -- ais523 06:42, 3 October 2015 ( U T C)
  • Notability is not the same thing as verifiability and the two should not be confused. In short, notability is the requirement for inclusion of a subject. Verifiability is the threshold for inclusion of any content within an article. A non-notable article does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia, even if the content in it is verifiable. Swarm ♠ 06:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Swarm: Although I respect that opinion, I strongly disagree with it. To me, verifiability is the line between what Wikipedia should cover and what it shouldn't. (When I started at Wikipedia, WP:N was just an essay, but enough people agreed with it that it eventually got promoted to a guideline. Then I took a very long wikibreak. When I came back, WP:GNG had been created, which effectively defines notability in terms of verifiability, and I'm fine with that. Something doesn't get covered in multiple unconnected sources without being notable to some extent, and if something is notable, then unconnected sources will start covering it. -- ais523 23:15, 14 October 2015 ( U T C)

• Comment. I'm seeing a lot of keep votes and very few sources. If there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources, then the article should probably be redirected or merged somewhere. You don't inherit notability from your parent operating system. Otherwise, we'd have an entire encyclopedia full of Linux kernel miscellany. Or, at least, it would be even worse than what we do have. The problem is that the Amiga has been dead for 20 years. I'm not even sure where to start looking for sources, but there may be something useful on Google Books. My searches didn't really turn up much there. This could probably be redirected to list of file systems if no in-depth sources are found. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 08:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  Is notability based on how long something has been 'dead'? Even the article about ext2 (the Linux filesystem) doesn't have this plethora of non-primary sources, while now the article about Amiga's OFS has been tagged as one-source by the editor who proposed this AfD. The article about the MINIX file system also has only one third-party source, while funnily enough, the other two sources are Andrew Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds. Am I proposing that all these filesystems be considered for turning into oblivion from Wikipedia? Hell no. They are all pretty relevant, even if lengthy features in magazines or whatnot have not been pinpointed. But if nothing else, I will try to go for consistency on this encyclopedia if it is decided that only some roughly-equally-as-documented filesystems are not worthy of articles. LjL ( talk) 11:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for the check; I just added some secondary sources to MINIX file system (and removed Torvalds's autobiography). Regarding Amiga Old File System: that article has only one source, and I'd like to see more, but I'm not suggesting it be deleted because if what the article states can be corroborated, this should be a perfectly notable file system. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 08:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep As a general guidelines, I would agree that notability isn't inherited from a parent entity. But part of an enterprise like Wikipedia is a certain level of completeness. If I can find out every release date of Amiga and a changelog on that page, but not get any detail about a file system that ran on it, something is wrong. I would agree to a proposal to cut back some of the needlessly gory detail on the Amiga page and merge things like this article in, but the content on this page is worth keeping around and is in keeping with the other topics in this area.-- 69.204.153.39 ( talk) 20:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  While my vote is also to keep, I disagree that it would be practical to merge this with Amiga, as if we put every relevant filesystem there, that article would become quite a mess. Independent article is right in my opinion. LjL ( talk) 12:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Doesn't pass notability criteria, and searches turned up nothing to suggest it does. Arguments to keep above, while passionate and well-thought out, are not policy based. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I'd say that since "a clear majority is in favor of keeping", and the current state of thing is that the article exists, there is no consensus to delete. Given that, I think at this point you're twisting process, and it's interesting that other filesystem-related articles that were AfD'd were hastily deleted (even though they were receiving sources and improvements), this one is being hastily... relisted. -- LjL ( talk) 11:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

@ LjL: I agree. Attempting to parse what Swarm is saying, I think he may be mistaking guidelines (of which there are many) for policy (of which there are few) and substituting personal judgement for clear consensus. But the best any of us can do is employ our judgement, guided by guidelines and experience. The only statement I found on WP on the matter of local versus community consensus is this: "The term local consensus should also be avoided. Consensus is always understood to refer to those editors who take part in a discussion, whether current or historical. All consensus is local..." It's unfortunate so many areas of Wikipedia are being eaten away at in this fashion, but given the current system, everyone must use their own judgement and try to act in good faith.-- 69.204.153.39 ( talk) 14:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Just because AmigaOS is notable does not mean that all its components are. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Ultimately, I'm not seeing any convincing evidence at all that this article meets WP:NSOFTWARE. All mentions in books are brief one-liners. The mentions I found elsewhere on the web were from obscure and likely non-reliable sources. This certainly does not satisfy the requirement that the software be the subject (not merely mentioned) in multiple manuals, reviews, instruction books, etc. -- Biblio worm 18:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Changed to keep. -- Biblio worm 02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Please be mindful that WP:NSOFTWARE is an essay -- not a guideline, policy, or rule. It has been rejected as a policy in the past as it lacks community consensus, which (as its header pointedly mentions) makes it not terribly applicable in these discussions.-- 69.204.153.39 ( talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

But maybe it only lacks local consensus but it has global consensus... </sarcasm> LjL ( talk) 11:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Biblio's statement applies just as well for WP:GNG, so the argument still stands. (I think people should stop using subject-specific guidelines entirely. All subject-specific guidelines are largely a restatement of WP:GNG along with arbitrary shortcuts, that some people assumed would only include clearly notable instances) -- intgr  [talk] 07:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I've added another two sources, one to an article on the Total Amiga magazine elaborating on how to make the best use of hard drives, and including some information about SFS previously not on our article (deleted files directory), and another to a mention on Ars Technica claiming that (as of 2008, when the article was written) the filesystem was still in active use among "Amiga fans". -- LjL ( talk) 12:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The Ars Technica magazine is just a brief one-line mention. The Total Amiga entry has some substance, but it's still not really enough to establish notability. It's the only (somewhat) good source on the article, and GNG says that multiple in-depth sources are expected. Think about it: if this subject was really notable, why must we press really hard through obscure fans-only magazines to find even a single one-paragraph mention? -- Biblio worm 15:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• • Uhm, because it's a computer file system, making it not exactly everyone's favorite conversation topic, but if this intrinsic paucity of secondary sources is not accounted for, then many legitimate technical topics will never have the amount of coverage some editors want for everything. I must also mention I find it a slight symptom of bias when I comment about adding sources and people consistently counter-comment "but it's still not enough". LjL ( talk) 15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Why should software be the exception to GNG? Note that I'm not somehow opposed to software; I'm very interested in it and in fact know some coding myself. But if a certain piece of software is actually notable and deserves coverage in Wikipedia, it shouldn't be especially difficult to find somewhat in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. It should meet this criteria if it is actually "legitimate"; in fact, the standard of "legitimate" on Wikipedia is defined by the policy. There is always WP:IAR, but invoking it for only one file system would set a bad precedent. ("Upset that your article doesn't meet the notability guidelines? No problem! Just cite WP:IAR!") -- Biblio worm 20:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
      • I don't invoke WP:IAR, if anything I just invoke common sense in applying WP:Notability (which, as a guideline and not a policy, "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense"), and in particular I ask that the requirements of notability "proof" are weighed against the conceivably possible "proof" that you could obtain for this sort of topic. If you, for example, set the bar as high as the amount of references you can find to establish notability for the Physics article, then you would exclude pretty much everything else. Instead, I think notability requirement should be toned down common-sensically (not waived) for topics that are quite technical and narrow, and as such, while still useful information to have, may not be on every book and magazine on Earth. LjL ( talk) 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

        @ LjL: The notability requirements are like that for good reasons, see WP:WHYN. Without good substantial sources, it's really not possible to write a neutral and verifiable article. Common sense tells me this applies regardless of what kind of subject it is. -- intgr  [talk] 19:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I note that section states "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that [...]" (emphasis mine); so the strict insistence on having multiple secondary sources available may be a bit over the top, and given 1) we have at least one or two secondary sources establishing we aren't making things up and 2) we have some primary sources telling us the details about this filesystem, I think that can be enough. And so does the section you linked, in my reading. LjL ( talk) 20:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

@ LjL: Ok, that's starting to make sense to me. But please do other editors a favor and provide external links, page numbers, etc along with your sources, so it's easier to verify. If you make it easy for other editors to figure out what you're talking about, then more people are encouraged to do so. For example, with most books you can create links to a Google Books preview directly to the right page, see WP:BOOKLINKS. Also, is the cited "Smart Filesystem documentation" available on the Internet somewhere? If you do that, I'll have a look at the sources and vote here. -- intgr  [talk] 10:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I assure you I usually go to great lengths to make "proper" citations whenever I'm able. I see I've added two books by ISBN+title only, I must have been in a hurry. There is also the problem that I don't exactly know how to refer to different page numbers within the same source, unless I duplicate the entire citation each time (or we change the article to Harvard referencing, which I don't even like). As to official documentation, there is the original AmigaGuide documented as an external link already, and I will add a description of the block format (the "developer's manual" if you like), though both refer to the original version, not the "modern" versions in MorphOS/AROS/etc. LjL ( talk) 11:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I've now hopefully improved the citations a bit (and added a cited fact about UEFI support). LjL ( talk) 13:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Four independent published sources are cited in the article, but with limited coverage; substantial coverage exists in primary sources. This article does not strictly satisfy WP:GNG, but I think it's fair to relax GNG requirements somewhat, as some of the reasons in WP:WHYN do not apply — SFS is now mostly a fact of history, there is no risk of it being an advertisement or a hoax. Due to WP:Recentism, it's naturally more difficult to locate sources for this subject, but they probably exist in archives somewhere (e.g. old magazines). As evidenced by the amount of discussion and edits since the AfD begun, there are interested editors around to keep the article maintained. -- intgr  [talk] 13:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: is this going to be relisted ad libitum until the somewhat overwhelming "keep"s somehow start turning into overwhelming "delete"s? LjL ( talk) 22:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This was a very difficult decision, but I think, after examining the new sources added to the article, that it does satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. (There are a couple of linked manuals exclusively about the file system.) Therefore, I am changing my opinion to "keep". -- Biblio worm 02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Agree with Biblioworm, the manuals show SFS passes WP:NSOFTWARE. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 25 October 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.