Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sysbench


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Sysbench

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

Linux benchmark utility, does not meet WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, no WP:RS coverage looking at the application as a stand-alone thing. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 12:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: What about top, ls, cat, as well as other similar benchmarking software such as geekbench? All of these Linux/Unix commands as well as Geekbench can have their own pages. So why can't Sysbench have its own page as well? — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk 14:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, this is not an argument from policy. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 10:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fairly recent (misread stable release date, 2004 is not recent, but still having trouble finding RS) software package lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The other software such as top, ls and cat are ubiquitous commands typically used in unix-based operating systems and have coverage in any number of technical manuals / guides and online, so far I have not seen that for this package. ASUKITE 15:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * sysbench is actually in all the major linux repo distributions. Also, do a google search and you will find that it has been reliable articles about sysbench. This is described in article and referenced. Please review this and continue this discussion of the merits of the sysbench software. 2600:1702:10B0:7A30:0:0:0:3A (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To further add to the reply above, when searching for sysbench, you can see results from respected Linux sources, such as Linux Hint, as well as wikis from the biggest Linux distros, such as Gentoo and Ubuntu. In addition, there's even a 17-page manual exclusively for sysbench here. Also note that sysbench comes packaged with most Linux distros (Arch Linux, Slackware, Debian, Ubuntu, CentOS, etc.) I will try to add more sources from this list to the Wikipedia page. — Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk 17:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Software tends to have very few discussions that are in print and reliable. Most discussion happens on messaging boards between users, and so it is hard to meet the threshold for notability.

Finding uses of sysbench in published papers is trivial. A quick google search of sysbench on arXiv yields more than 3000 uses. Most of those are uses of the tool, rather than sources that have enough coverage to assert notability. One exception I've found is an entire chapter in a book on the subject of sysbench.


 * Also claims that sysbench is the most used benchmark tool. Paywalled and I don't have access.

I went digging to see what coverage could be found that wasn't trivial in nature. Reliable coverage is drowned out by the numerous uses of sysbench and reporting of benchmark results. I've sifted through and found some things that may or may not be good enough to justify notability. I list them below to generate discussion.

Less good sources, but more coverage than "here are my sysbench results".


 * conference talk by creator. Arguably primary source, despite non-creator publication mechanism.
 * multiple uses around pp.70-ish. explanation of the tool and using it to benchmark the Raspberry Pi.
 * master's thesis with roughly a page of discussion on sysbench.
 * this paper states that the test is sometimes called "Multi-threaded System Evaluation Benchmark".
 * Talk named "Practical Sysbench". This link is only the slides, so more research could be done to locate the conference proceedings.

I will report back tomorrow with more findings. I will try to gain access to the chapter, which probably includes some sources, or at least good information that could be used. Acebulf (talk &#124; contribs)  06:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 06:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.