Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux on IBM Z




 * 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 no consensus to delete. BD2412 T 04:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Linux on IBM Z

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

this article is a patent ad. i came across this article expecting wikipedia quality, but i was slapped with nonsense like:

"Instead of paravirtualization, IBM mainframes use full virtualization, which permits workload density far greater than paravirtualization does."

"Combining full virtualization of the hardware plus lightweight Virtual Machine containers that run Linux in isolation (somewhat similar in concept to Docker) result in a platform that supports more virtual servers than any other in a single footprint,[12]"

of course that [12] reference points to nothing that backs that crazy statement, but it gets funnier...

"which also can lower operating costs. Additional savings can be seen from reduced need for floor space, power, cooling, networking hardware, and the other infrastructure needed to support a data center."

so i added the 'advert' tag and head on to talk to discuss the issue, but what i found in talk is shocking: this page has been a ridiculous ad for nearly 20 years, and wikipedia could not fix it. excerpts from talk:

- This article reads very much like an IBM ad. [2005]

- Simply one of the worst Wiki articles I have read. [2007]

- I tripped over this article in a Google search of "mainframe security linux" and this really does constitute an ad. [2016]

the nonsense statements that i quoted before regarding performance ("a platform that supports more virtual servers than any other in a single footprint" etc) contrast with real performance comparisons published by 3rd parties (note: IBM disallows or disallowed publishing benchmark results). please read the "performance" talk section, where someone tried to add real performance info but it was deleted even when the writer produced sources for said info.

in summary:

- this article contains too much ad content, and thus nothing in it can be trusted.

- real info depicting weaknesses of the platform gets deleted.

- this could not be fixed in nearly 20 years.

- nobody cares enough about this page except parties with vested interests, and thus it will never be fixed.

the existence of articles like this weakens wikipedia and the trust we have in it. i much prefer the absence of an article to a compromised article. thus, i second what ThomThom said in talk:

"I tripped over this article in a Google search of "mainframe security linux" and this really does constitute an ad. I did wikipedia searches of "ibm linux" and "unisys linux". There is no similar "Linux on ClearPath" article about using Linux on the Unisys mainframes. This article mentions advantages and pricing for zLinux that read like a marketing white paper while NOT even mentioning that it has direct competition in performance and pricing from Unisys. The solution to the NPOV problem is not to have the article mention Unisys. Nor is the solution for Unisys to have it's own article. This article should be dropped as not being encyclopedic. My background: I'm a federal employee (IT specialist - DBA, series 2210) who programs on Unisys mainframes using CODASYL/COBOL. ThomThom (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)"

Lanchon (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 1.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 01:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTADVERT. This article is a content split of IBM Z. For a standard article merge would be a possibility. Merging is out for this brochure-like article. I also don't thik WP:ATD-E to stubify works for such a content split. I'm fine with redirect as well, especially if any other editors think this can be in the future. &mdash;siro&chi;o 06:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Neutral, leaning towards keep. Must be cut down. WP:N isn't proven in the article, but seems plausible with the Register, Motley Fool (passing mention which doesn't count much) and I found 1 other in a quick search. Fine as a WP:SPINOUT due to the size of IBM Z and the separate scope to the main article. My understanding is the big endian ports of OSS has hindered this, so it's a niche topic. Widefox ; talk 23:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "My understanding is the big endian ports of OSS has hindered this" As in "a lot of OSS is not byte-order neutral, and runs only on little-endian machines, and is thus not available on Z/Architecture", i.e. the lack of big-endian ports has hindered this? Guy Harris (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep a substantial portion of the content needs to be deleted as WP:NOTADVERT, but I think enough will remain to keep the article. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep per Walt Andre🚐 00:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep What Walt Yoder said., , and either need more references or beter references (the first needs more and better references; the latter two need references, period, as they currently have none), plus whatever changes are necessary to match what the references say, and then some cleanup to make them sound less promotional, or they need to be removed.  What remains might be good enough to keep, as a companion to other Linux-on-XXX articles such as PowerLinux.  (And if what remains isn't enough to deserve an article, perhaps that applies to some other Linux-on-XXX articles as well.) Guy Harris (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2023 (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.