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.
Weak delete. Worthwhile though this software may be it does not seem to have enough coverage. It gets mentions in various books and articles but always as a minor component of something bigger. This might be enough for verification but not notability. --
DanielRigal (
talk)
22:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Notability is an issue. What's your reason for wanting to keep it when notability hasn't been shown? Is it because you think that it's useful? If it is, that is not a valid reason for keeping an article.
Joe Chill (
talk)
20:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
My basic reason here is that most
file systems are notable in some way to exist (leaving aside my personal attachment to them). And also I am more of an inclusionist :-) Perhaps not the most compelling reasons to keep the article from some editors here, but nonetheless the said reasons prompted me to cast the vote. If the general consensus will tend to deletion, I would recommend perhaps merging it into some place referenced in
File system or at least documenting some of it in
Comparison of file systems. --
Mokhov (
talk)
20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Not notable in the Wikipedia sense. Keep and delete !votes in AFD that don't reference at least one guideline are discounted by the closing admin.
Joe Chill (
talk)
21:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. I am not wedded to it; if I were I would look up a couple, but won't expend any more effort regarding this article for now to see what others have to say. --
Mokhov (
talk)
22:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment: from the Department of Second Thoughts: if the consensus is to delete please move it to my user's space; I'll try to salvage and nurture it to an acceptable level, including notability proofs, for re-inclusion into the main article space, when I have time. That is if you guys practice such things for non-creators. --
Mokhov (
talk)
22:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - The article exists already, covers a valid topic and is structured properly. Granted, it is not an exhaustive article, but it serves the purpose of being a simple reference for this tool. --
AStanhope (
talk)
12:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)reply
WP:GNG is not applicable here. There are a number of independent academic and non-academic publications covering the topic over a span of years at least between 2004-2008 published by IEEE, ACM, and USENIX, and O'Reilly of works that use and/or reference davfs2. I've added 7 of them to the article as examples, and now I am laying my case to rest. --
Mokhov (
talk)
15:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep or Merge I don't believe the subject of this article fails the
notability guideline. I think the article should be expanded and while it could certainly use some citations, it provides enough information to easily meet the
stub guideline. I found coverage of this software in a number of published books such as Version Control with SubversionISBN0-596-51033-0 and others so the authors of these books and the WebDAV community at least consider this project to be important enough to give coverage to. The software is also included with many major Linux distributions such as
Debian Linux
[1] which has often been used as a metric to establish notability for articles about open source software. While I think there is enough information to work with to expand this article, if it is to remain a stub, merging or expanding this article into a larger article about
WebDAV is another option as I can find plenty of coverage for mod_dav and mod_dav_fs with Google Books
[2][3] and other searches. --
Tothwolf (
talk)
13:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)reply
As I already said above, I found enough material via Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books where I feel the subject of the article meets the
notability guideline. As I also mentioned above, the software is included with major
Linux distributions so the larger open source software community clearly considers it important and thinks it receives enough usage to warrant inclusion and distribution with major Linux distributions. --
Tothwolf (
talk)
14:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)reply
@Ironholds -- it certainly does. Subversion is a notable and widely used version control system today. Plus see other refs. I added for example. --
Mokhov (
talk)
15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)reply
@Tothwolf -- the references have been found earlier. I suggest to also add them to article when you mention them here, just like I just did. It would help the article tremendously, or, if not tremendously, it may improve it to an acceptable keep level. I added 7 of them to the article. You can add other noteworthy ones as well as help expanding the article. Thanks :-) --
Mokhov (
talk)
15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Subversion mention in the books is far from "minor". Some contain entire sections on how to install and configure it for Apache and why. --
Mokhov (
talk)
04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge into
WebDAV (or even into a new article about WebDAV-based filesystems).
The general topic of WebDAV-based file systems is important enough that Wikipedia should cover them, but articles about the individual file systems would be short and repetitive. So we should create a section of
WebDAV (or even a new article) that discusses WebDAV-based filesystems, both the one built in to Mac OS X and those for Linux: davfs2 (the most important, AFAICT),
fusedav, and
wdfs. (We would keep
davfs2 as a redirect, of course.) I'm afraid I'm too busy to do this myself; any volunteers?
CWC04:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Change to merge. This sounds good to me. There is enough coverage to justify brief inclusion of this product as part of another, more generic, article. --
DanielRigal (
talk)
11:53, 16 September 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.