Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fireplane

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. Michig (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fireplane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zackmann08 (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Weak keep. Unable to locate any sources that demonstrate notability. APerson (talk!) 16:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed vote to "weak keep", per the information and source provided by Margin1522. APerson (talk!) 18:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unable to locate any sources that show it even exists.... --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't double !vote. As nominator your support for deletion is generally assumed. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not double voting... Just voicing my rational for nominating. --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep It's a thing, if you're interested in Sun you're probably interested in it. IEEE Micro considered it worth writing about (as has always been linked from this article, despite the "There are no sources" claims.) http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=988688 Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Are there any sources that demonstrate that it's a thing, beyond two articles written by the same guy and one promotional spec sheet by the company that created the device? APerson (talk!) 13:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - as @Andy Dingley: said, it's a thing, it's been recognized IEEE and ACM. Certainly notable. Also, how does the inclusion of this, even short, harm Wikipedia in any way? It's part of computer history, even if it was not long-lived. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Fuzheado, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the article's "been recognized" by the IEEE and ACM, or how that establishes notability. Also, it may be HARMLESS, but what does that prove? APerson (talk!) 13:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @APerson: - The technical specs have been published with IEEE and ACM, which is certainly significant as they are the main professional and academic societies in computer science and engineering. It puzzles me why that's not obvious -- this is an implemented technology by Sun Microsystems in their UltraSPARC chips which is the basis of their internal interconnect. It is in their manuals. Engineers write (or wrote) to this spec. It is an implemented technology by one of the top producers of server hardware so I'm rather perplexed this has to be discussed. What this "proves" is that Wikipedia is indeed a record of computing history, and part of all history. It's also obvious Zackmann08 has nominated this because of his/her bias in favor of firefighting topics as seen on the user page and the recent history of user contributions. I can only guess, but perhaps this nomination is a way to clear the space for a link related to aerial firefighting. I consider this a misleading nomination by not noting that motive and not being transparent in the rationale. Why not make a disambiguation page and keep content in Wikipedia instead of destroying it, if that was the intent? I'm not immovable -- I'm simply asking for users to be transparent and cooperative. Ping: @Andy Dingley: -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Fuzheado, I guess I missed any bias by the nominator, but then again, ATTP. Is Sun really so notable that minor topics related to it automatically become notable? (note: that was a legitimate question, not a rhetorical one; I'm unsure of the answer.) APerson (talk!) 16:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you buy things on-line? If you did, and you started doing it around 2000, same as most people did, you were relying on Fireplane to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Andy Dingley, if there were a single source for that in the article or this discussion, I would accept that the device is notable. As it is, however, the article cites a load of papers talking about the device's architecture, not its apparently wide usage. APerson (talk!) 18:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep I agree with @Fuzheado:. The ACM and IEEE don't publish tinkertoy devices or unimportant project's for obvious reasons. Their recognition does not come lightly. If the IEEE and ACM do not establish this articles notability let me be the first to put up nearly every other piece of technology the ACM or IEEE have helped define for deletion (note: That would most likely be near three quarters of Wikipedia's articles relating to computer hardware from what I see.) Andrdema (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Andrdema, I can't see why the impact factors of the journals in which the articles' sources were published has such a strong impact on notability. The fact remains that very few people have written about, much less heard about, this device. Also, articles ought to stand on their own merits. APerson (talk!) 18:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The example arguments given in WP:AON consist only of an arbitrary "if we delete X we have to delete Y", whereas Andrdema begins by explaining why the factors in question establish notability, and only then goes on to use an AON argument. The only flaw I can see in the keep arguments presented here is that many of the claims to notability haven't been supported by direct links to sources, but I'm not sure how much that matters in this case ("not sure" as in "I have no idea", not "I'm doubtful"). ekips39 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ekips39: As you wished two articles of note that establish this article as notable are available Here and Here 159.18.103.65 (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @APerson: two articles of note that establish this article as notable are available Here and Here also there was a lot of information about the Fireplane itself inside of High Performance Computing articles and conference records. Please respect that you do not speak for many people and can only really speak for yourself. Just because you have not heard of it does not mean others have not. To point back to articles ought to stand on their own merits if you read it it states that it could simply be that other articles have not been held to the same standards as of yet. This is not true many Technology and Engineering articles notability have been judged on this principle alone. To ignore this now would mean to have to go back to all the previous articles and flag them for deletion accordingly. 159.18.103.65 (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  159, I can't see either of the articles; can you give me their titles/authors so I can try and find them elsewhere? APerson (talk!) 14:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep – I don't think it was all that significant. It was a state-of-the-art architecture for a couple of years after 2001. The Charlesworth IEEE paper gets 80 cites on GS, so it was notable to system architects around that time. Mentioned Described in this book. It would be nice if the article could tell us how long it was used. Was it superceded by something else, or are the same principles still in use? – Margin1522 (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In answer to "how long it was used", it was the interconnect plane for Sun's mid-range and high-end systems, including the Sun Fire 15K and E25K, which were sold until 2009.

Th replacement product line, the M-Series systems, were introduced in 2007. So, this was Sun's flagship interconnect architecture for about six years, and was part of an active product line for about eight years.--NapoliRoma (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - contrary to the nominator's rationale, there are sources that show that the subject does exist; furthermore, the subject meets the notability requirements. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.