Talk:Dell Fluid File System

Removing context template
In July 2012 a template was added that article didn't meet Wiki standards in regards to notability: I can't change anything about that - but there is a Lemma on Exanet, and the FluidFS is the (only) follow-up on their products as Dell bought the IP when Exanet went bust. So imho if Exanet meets the Wiki standards on notability FluidFS would also meet them. It remains however a specialized niche-market for IT professionals: you won't build a FluidFS storage system at home unless you would have very high storage demands at home. But I did remove the "context" template as I extended the article giving more details in what it does, created a schematic drawing how it works and cleaned up the references (on the original page it was just the URL: no dates or titles give). Hope people will extend the article and/or remove any errors in the text. Tonkie (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the context does not come until the body, while generally it is better to put context in the lead. This is the more minor issue, and can be addressed later, but is still a problem in my opinion. Very early on you need to say what it is, in layman's terms. If someone hits this article at random "scalable NAS storage solution" would be meaningless to probably 99% of readers. At least should say it has something to do with computer networks for example. W Nowicki (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability comment
I agree with Tonkie. The Exanet file system, now known as the Dell FluidFS, is unique in its capabilities and technical aspects. There's no reason to question the notability of FluidFS when Wikipedia provides pages for other file system references such as ext3, ext4, or GFS. My two cents... — Preceding unsigned comment added by StorageFreak (talk • contribs) 20:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed, but our argument is stronger if done by presenting evidence instead of mere assertions. This should have been covered by the trade press, for example. So it might take some time, but those sources should be dug out and added. I would argue that a merge with Exanet is probably a good idea too. One is the company and one is the software, but they are nor really independently notable, since the company as far as I know did not do other products that were discussed significantly by independent sources? Will propose a merge unless someone objects. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)