Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of MPI, OpenMP, and Stream Processing (3rd nomination)


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of MPI, OpenMP, and Stream Processing
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

re-nominating once again: as 2nd nomination didn't get any feedback, I will try to get more opinions from Wikiproject Computing this time. Rationale for re-nomination: still blatant WP:SYNTHESIS. In addition, comparison of OpenMP (specific implementation) to Stream Processing is arguably comparing "apples to oranges"; on the other hand, if OpenMP is mentioned, it is unclear why other competing "apples-to-apples" technologies (like Intel TBB) are not mentioned. In original AfD nomination author has promised to improve the article, which has never happened. To address concerns of those who commented on first nomination: I wouldn't object to generic article (with name like Comparison of different parallelization techniques), as it was suggested in previous AfD discussion, but it will IMHO need complete rewrite from current article, so current article isn't of much use anyway.


 * Delete - this article should follow the pattern of other "Comparison of..." articles such as Comparison of operating systems. The title should not specify the three things it's comparing - but rather the broad category of things of this nature in order that other parallelization systems may be included into the article at some future time.  If other similar systems exist then they too should be given attention in the article in order to avoid bias against those other systems.  If we accepted this kind of pattern then instead of Comparison of operating systems we'd need articles like Comparison of Linux and MacOS and Comparison of DOS and Linux and so on for every permutation and combination of operating system - which would require (in that case) several hundred articles instead of just one.  If deletion is not the consensus view, then I'd also support renaming the article to something more along those lines and encouraging a rewrite more in the style of other "Comparison of..." articles.  I also agree with the nomination that the article needs to clearly delineate when it's comparing overall techniques for parallelization and when it's talking about competing products that use similar techniques. SteveBaker (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (per reasons, below) for purely procedural grounds: the last failed nomination (by same nominator) closed only yesterday! To allow immediate renomination by the same person gives those with an ax to grind too much leeway to be disruptive.  --Karnesky (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Objection Please note that: (a) previous one has been closed without any feedback as no consensus, that is the reason why I've re-nominated it; (b) I've asked closing administrator if it is ok to re-nominate it, see User talk:Courcelles; if administrator was wrong (or I misunderstood what he said), let's discuss it with both me and him in some suitable place. In addition, I don't really see how procedural grounds can be possibly related to merits of the article. Ipsign (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify: probably I should have emphasized that previous nomination has been closed with zero feedback. I certainly wouldn't dare to re-nominate if there was any meaningful discussion (even if it is no consensus), but under the circumstances I felt that re-nominating won't be any different from re-listing it. As this view was (as I see it) supported by closing administrator, I've went for re-nominating it. Ipsign (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems acceptable under RELIST. I'm unmoved by your arguments, compared to those raised in the very first nomination.  SteveBaker's arguments would also be consistent with merely renaming the page.  That first nomination was not closed because of the promise for improving the article, but because the article was good enough to be kept then.  I'm unconvinced that it has gotten any worse or that our policies have changed to make it less acceptable. --Karnesky (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it mean that you won't object to renaming it if it survives? Actually, I'm fine with renaming to something more generic (per multiple suggestions in original nomination and per SteveBaker above) and removing all WP:OR and WP:SYN, but I'm afraid it will become blank as a result of such cleaning up; I agree that renamed one can be provided with something which is not WP:OR/WP:SYN, but IMHO there is a snowball in hell chance that anybody will do it within reasonable time - unless somebody here on AfD is willing to assume this job. Corrected - see my Comment below. Ipsign (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per original decision. This decision was sufficiently informed. This decision was not contingent on improvements being made. There may be a WP:SYN issue here but that can be tagged and corrected. It is inappropriate to send this to AfD without first tagging. Deletion is not required to fix this. I have added a tag to the article. --Kvng (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure exactly if this comment belongs here, but think it is better to mention it: I've spent some time and found all the papers referenced in the article (see article/talk page for details). As soon as it have been done, it became apparent that "Stream Processing" has not been even mentioned in any of them (and one was completely irrelevant). Therefore, if article survives this AfD, I am going to remove all the mentions of "Stream Processing" per WP:VERIFIABLE (unless somebody provides references for comparing Stream Processing with any of those within reasonable time frame, which I really really doubt). Ipsign (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Pros and Cons sections appear to be a substantial copy of fleshed out with original research. The preceding sections are just copied from their individual articles. Restructuring this page is unfeasible, because compared to other comparisons it would require so much technical detail that it'd need a significant amount of original thought. Wikipedia isn't the place. --Pnm (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2010 (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.