

This really highlights what is wrong with Wikipedia: - armored
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MogileFS_(2nd_nomination)

======
armored
If you dig a little, the decision to delete the article on MogileFS was made
by an editor with "schizoaffective disorder", despite plenty of great argument
in favor of keeping the page. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Secret>

~~~
prodigal_erik
I also would have voted "delete". Not even the agenda-driven proponents could
actually cite solid secondary sources that do more than name-dropping. Most of
them seemed to think they were trying to win some kind of popularity contest
(do they think bigger numbers matter?) or debate (do they think "we use it,
it's great" is verifiable?), not at all what
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:N> calls for. And that _ad hominem_ you felt
the need to dredge up is telling.

~~~
armored
Did you take the time to read the arguments? They cited several books. By the
same notability standards you could delete the articles on Ceph and GlusterFS.

Ad hominem or not, my point is that some 20 something year old kid, living at
home, suffering from mental issues should not be "the decider". Wikipedia
isn't about "the best argument wins" it's about who has the most free time.

~~~
prodigal_erik
The only book actually cited by name (as opposed to "if you do a search we
think you'll find something") was _Building Scalable Websites_ , and the
related content in its entirety was

> There are existing products that perform similar roles to this system,
> including MogileFS (<http://www.danga.com/mogilefs/>), which implements
> server and client component software and uses an HTTP interface.

Not only is one sentence way too little to base an entire article on, but it
didn't even merit a reference in the book's index. Another admin objected
"Books results yield only trivial mentions" and it looks to me like he was
right—nobody managed to find a verifiable article or book section by a
disinterested third party that said _anything at length_ about MogileFS.
Wikipedia is not about "if the press mentions the product at all, we can start
writing whatever we want about it." Wikipedia is about "show secondary sources
for what you write" but instead proponents tried to handwave and argue their
way past some "kid" who made the right call.

As for those other systems, well, GlusterFS looks similarly obscure and
unsourced and probably also isn't ready for its own article. However, Usenix
gave Ceph eleven pages in ;login: which pretty much anchors its notoriety in
the industry.

