Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/System bus model (2nd 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   speedy keep. This may or may not strictly meet the letter of the speedy keep guidelines. However, this article's previous AFD was closed a little over a week ago, and a merge discussion is actively ongoing. That editorial process should be permitted to run its course. If consensus on the merge or redirect process fails to form after a reasonable amount of time (perhaps a month or so), then another trip to AFD might be warranted. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

System bus model
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was proposed for deletion last year and nominated for deletion last month. The events concerning the proposed deletion was detailed in the previous AfD. The previous AfD was closed after approximately three weeks as no consensus. The rationale for deletion remains unchanged from the last year's and last month's efforts &mdash; the lack of notability and any appropriate alternatives. Additional discussion of relevance can be found at Talk:System bus model. Rilak (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy close the last discussion was closed about a week ago. You should be going to DRV to reopen the last discussion. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of WP:DRV is that it prescribes no such thing. Rilak (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 05:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't think the proposed deletion has any bearing on this here... prod's are fragile things; if somebody disagreed that doesn't preclude a nomination--in some cases it actively encourages it. WP:DRV has no bearing here. Nobody actually ever (I think) !voted keep without also suggesting a merge; the no consensus was predicated on a lack of a suitable target for a merge. There's an active talk page discussion. Perhaps a target's been found. I'd probably prefer if Rilak waited longer or more actively pursued the merge route, but there's nothing improper about this nomination. Shadowjams (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only a month since the last nomination, and nothing has changed since. This seems to be a case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.  Shadowjams is entirely correct when he says there is plurality support for a merge, and I suggest that you return to the talk page and seek consensus about where to merge it to.— S Marshall  T/C 07:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy close The article has not been fully merged into system bus. No need for an AfD, this can be handled on the talk page. Relisting an article on AfD a week after it has previously be closed, for the third time by the same nominator, without and essential change to the circumstances is obviously not going to provide any new insights and therefore disruptive. —Ruud 08:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Majority support of an action without merit does not (or more realistically, should not) stand. Most of the keeps and merges in the first AfD have unrecoverable flaws that make them equivalent to votes; and AfD is not meant to be voting, but discussion based on policy, guidelines, and the facts.


 * For instance, in the second week of the first AfD, Ruud Koot asserted that the article is about the system bus and therefore should be kept or merged. I objected to this on the basis that the article was not about system bus, but the system bus model, and that the article only had coverage of the system bus as background information.


 * Whose argument is of merit? Is the claim that the article is about the system bus supported by the facts? Specifically, is this what the article claims its subject to be; and is this what the references cited in the article claims the subject to be?


 * Instead of resorting to referencing policies, guidelines, and the like, can we please examine arguments to determine if they carry any weight and present counterarguments if they do not? Referencing WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED actually works in my favor because, as what you linked to says, "This argument is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change." In the last AfD, the notability concerns were not addressed, as were the appropriateness of the suggested merge targets.


 * WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED also says, "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination." Was it proven that the rationale in the PROD and the first AfD was invalid? I don't think so. With the exception of two or so editors, the rationales were consistently ignored &mdash; ignoring the argument does not prove it, or make it, invalid. Those who did not ignore the AfD rationale and tested it eventually supported deletion. (Also of relevance is the ensuring discussion at Talk:System bus model).


 * So does three clear deletes founded on discussion vs three clear keeps/merges founded on baseless assertions look like a clear and unanimous opposition to deletion you? This and the demonstrated poor quality of the first AfD makes describing this AfD as "frivolous" absolutely unwarranted. Rilak (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To quote User:Christopher Thomas: "There will come a time when you disagree with community consensus, and you know that you are right, and it's about something important. The correct thing to do is to respect community consensus anyways." No go merge the article so everyone is happy or stop wasting their time. —Ruud 09:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You say: Referencing WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED actually works in my favor because, as what you linked to says, "This argument is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change." In the last AfD, the notability concerns were not addressed, as were the appropriateness of the suggested merge targets. This represents a misunderstanding of notability.  Notability deals in subjects and topics, not content.  In other words, all things being equal, we should have an article on something if it's notable and not if it's not.  But the fact that something's not notable doesn't mean it can't be merged or redirected.  It just means it can't have its own article.  Do you see? A merge outcome is entirely consistent with our notability guidelines.  And  there are two important reasons why it's the correct outcome.  First, it benefits end-users.  "System bus model" is a plausible search term.  Readers searching for it should be directed to an article that actually mentions the topic.  And second, it reduces potential hassle for editors.  If we delete "system bus model" then we will leave a redlink that encourages an inexperienced editor to write an article in that space, whereas if there's a redirect, then there's much less risk that we'll find ourselves back here in a few months' time deleting another version (and incidentally giving our hypothetical inexperienced editor a bruising introduction to Wikipedian bureaucracy). In other words, whenever we're dealing with a plausible search term, correct outcomes include keep, merge, redirect or disambiguate.  Deletion is only an option for plausible search terms if there's a copyright violation, BLP issue or other major issue with the content, in which case it should be deleted and a fresh redirect or disambiguation page created at once. There are absolutely no circumstances in which it's a good idea to leave a plausible search term as a redlink.— S Marshall  T/C 10:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The previous discussions failed to establish a consensus to delete and the nomination does not advance any new argument. Our editing policy is to retain such material for further work by means of ordinary editing. Warden (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I offer no new argument is because the opposition has not responded, let alone invalidated the original argument. Is the reason why all sorts of non-notable garage bands, Pokemon and it elk, pseudoscience and fringe views remain on Wikipedia because one can keep an article whose notability is claimed and found to be non-notable by merely ignoring such concerns? Rilak (talk)


 * Comment Shouldn't the two merge discussions be closed first? (Even if the results are No consensus.) --Trevj (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2011 (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.