Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate


 * 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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 20:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate


Not notable enough to deserve its own article Memmke 10:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Merge with Linux kernel and redirect. Memmke 09:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a very good article, but google is usually a decent preliminary indicator of notability, and this debate yields literally thousands of relevant hits.  Tractorkingsfan 10:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I think a merge with the Linux article would be a better idea. Memmke 11:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool.     Tractorkingsfan 11:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems notable enough in the field of Computer Science. Chris Kreider 12:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable debate, needs more sources and a good expansion. Article is very vague at its present state. --Ter e nce Ong (C 12:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is notable. being a bad stub does not make it unnotable. Needs expansion though. MartinDK 14:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, but expansion is neccesary. Hello32020 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable in operating system history. Georgewilliamherbert 05:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tell me why this has to have its own article and can't be included in the Linux kernel article. Memmke 09:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think it should be merged, you should have proposed a merge on the article pages. What you proposed here is a delete, claiming non-notability.  The claim of non-notability is bunk (nothing personal); Linus (creator of Linux) and Tanenbaum (creator of Minix, a previous miniature UNIX-like OS) getting into a major public online argument about what aspects of OSes were optimal and would dominate in the future was major news at the time.  The article is terrifically weak / stublike, but it could be expanded into a point-counterpoint listing all the messages in the exchange with full wikilinks to the theories and topics debated.  It's sort of sad that my comment here is now longer than the article, but that can be fixed.  Destubbing stuff is normal routine fixit process.  AFD is for things which clearly aren't notable; WP does not require that we delete all stubs because they don't clearly justify that events/topics are notable yet.  The event was notable.  If you want to not delete it and merge it into the Linux history or some such, be my guest, but that's not deleting it.  Thanks!  Georgewilliamherbert 00:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This "debate" was essentially a flamewar, so I don't think a listing of points/counterpoints would improve the article, and arguments for and against microkernels vs. monolithic kernels are already listed in their respective articles. Maybe it was wrong to call this "non-notable", but again, I don't think it deserves its own article, mentioning it as a curiousity in the Linux kernel article would be enough. Memmke 09:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletionists and mergists out there, help me ward off these biased inclusionists! Memmke 09:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete An exchange of online postings seems non-notable. Edison 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Linux or wherever. Wasn't around then, but the article doesn't tell me why I should care enough about this debate to read (or write) an entire article about it. Sandstein 22:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, the debate is sufficiently notable for inclusion. RFerreira 05:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's easy to say that an article needs expansion, but what would that expansion consist of? Information on how Torvalds fails to "ignore the bait" and goes for some "serious flamefesting"? Or how Tanenbaum tells Linus that he should be thankful that he's not his student? Or that Torvalds goes on and on about perceived flaws in a system that's meant to be simple enough for students to understand (the design of). I see very little notable content in this debate, but I find the debate notable enough to mention, in its right place: the Linux kernel article. Memmke 09:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And, I just want to make it clear that I now stand for a merge of the article's content to Linux kernel, to the section (Architecture) where it is mentioned, and a redirect of this page to it. Also, I want to point out that it seems to me as if articles covering computer related topics stand a much higher chance of surviving AfDs. :-) Memmke 09:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Should there be article about debate on what kind of configuration management system is the best for the kernel development? Debate over filesystems? GPL3 vs GPL2 ? On proper threading implementation? Debate about binary drivers or other zillion of debates?  Lunixcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Needs to be improved a bit, but worthy of an article. --Wizardman 17:01, 19 November 2006 (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.