Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of MPI, OpenMP, and Stream Processing


 * 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), Leonard( Bloom ) 16:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of MPI, OpenMP, and Stream Processing

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems to be unreferenced WP:OR, needs review by knowledgeable editors ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   -- ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is not OR in the slightest. Each of the three things being compared here are well defined and referenced in their own right. A derivative page of this nature can essentially inherit the sources from the three articles under comparison. While the 'pros and cons of openMP' are somewhat suspect as potential technological POV, none of this merits deletion of this article. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 05:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will edit to improve Thank you for both of your comments. However, I think the page deserves its existence. As said by HatlessAtlas, the article comes from existing web pages on three topics. What I plan to do is summarizing what's existing and rewrite them in a more readable fashion as a comparison. I've seen quite many articles of comparisons, including Comparison of Linux distributions, Comparison of instant messaging clients, Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units, Comparison of virtual machines, and many others of this type. I agree that the article needs more work, both the content and the wording, and I'd like to keep editing to improve the page. Please let me know if you have other suggestion. Thanks. ALife (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)ALife
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Comparisons of this sort seem too much of a how-to and lead to improper synthesis.  If accepted, the format would open the door to comparisons of products which are often found in consumer magazines (Mac vs PC); comparisons of celebrities (Jolie vs Alba); fictional characters (Obi Wan vs Gandalf) and so on.  We have enough articles already without linking them together in this way.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Comparisons between similar technologies are not how-tos in any way. 212.183.240.205 (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep How about renaming it to something that doesn't seem like a how-to? "Programming protocols for parallel computers"?  "Data-parallel algorithms"?  A subject expert might be more able to think of a proper name, but the article ought to be renamed and improved.  Seems ok to be kept though. Protonk (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Protonk. "Comparison of..." can make it sound like a shopping guide and encourage people to post their opinions. But something more neutral can present the article as an overview of the general field where MPI, OpenMP, and Stream Processing are three of the main technologies. --Itub (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss rewrite/rename. Very important rundown of parallel coding, parallelism is the only way we can extract more performance in the future and this is still an ongoing battle, what's the future? It's the elephant in the room, it needs a rundown and it doesn't have to turn into a fight. It can easily be neutral provided 'fanboys' of languages/methods get culled. --Joffeloff (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.