| Revision as of 21:15, 20 July 2006 edit160.83.73.14 (talk) →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:35, 25 December 2021 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)Tag: AWBNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| *No kidding, references! Well, I withdraw my nomination then. I do suggest moving the article to a more neutral title and making the present information into a section, though. ] 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC) | *No kidding, references! Well, I withdraw my nomination then. I do suggest moving the article to a more neutral title and making the present information into a section, though. ] 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. A genuine concept in the field, and the sources prove it so. < |
*'''Keep'''. A genuine concept in the field, and the sources prove it so. ] 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' I closed this a few moments ago, but I forgot that I can't close AFD discussions that have both withdrawn nominations '''and''' delete votes (there is one delete vote). The discussion has been reopened due to my mistake. --''']''' <small>]</small> 05:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' I closed this a few moments ago, but I forgot that I can't close AFD discussions that have both withdrawn nominations '''and''' delete votes (there is one delete vote). The discussion has been reopened due to my mistake. --''']''' <small>]</small> 05:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Interesting and notable concept in IT fields, with sources. - ] 00:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Interesting and notable concept in IT fields, with sources. - ] 00:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:35, 25 December 2021
talk. o.o;; 03:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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 of the debate was keep. -- Kjkolb 03:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Myth of the nines
Non-notable phrase and concept with a dismal showing on Google, apparently a rehash of this article. Inherently POV. Melchoir 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable concept, fails WP:NPOVKeep. The article seems better now. --Coredesat talk 06:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)- Delete, non-encyclopedic, NPOV violation, bordering on OR. JIP | Talk 11:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but modify.
Disclaimer: I did add content to this page, although I didn't initiate it, and I suspect that it's me that you're accusing of being POV. At the time I edited it, I was a Distinguished Engineer at Sun Microsystems, specialising in system availability and its effect on users, so I claim some degree of expert knowledge. I do agree that the phrase has a poor google showing, and I'm somewhat surprised at that; I had heard the phrase used by a wide variety of people in the computer industry, including marketing types, at the time I first visited the page.
A significant use of the phrase is in a paper from Borland: http://bdn1.borland.com/borcon2004/article/paper/0,1963,32145,00.html#_Toc81733447 Their explanation of the myth is rather broader than mine, but the thrust is the same, and it is significant that they are using the same phrase. Another published reference is http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/69/04714302/0471430269.pdf which seems to be part of an important textbook, although I can't quite make out which one!
- It appears to be from the 2nd edition (or draft thereof) of Blueprints for High Availability. The phrase does not appear in the same place in the 1st edition from 2000. I have a signed copy. Call me geek.
And the phrase is taught in the college lecture http://www.pld.ttu.ee:81/IAF0030/lec/lec1.pdf So the phrase does have industrially significant published references and I (as an expert) can attest that it is used in the industry. I suggest that it is little known because it is an obscure corner (the intersection of engineering and user experience) of an abstruse field (systems availability management), but that doesn't mean it isn't important to those who deal in such matters.
I do agree that it's a scruffy article. The section on evaluating nines (did I add that bit?) is a repeat of information in several other articles, and should be replaced by a cross-reference.
I'd like to keep the article and I offer to take the published sources I cite above and synthesise them into a better version. I'll do that ASAP, anyway.
Emrys2 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- No kidding, references! Well, I withdraw my nomination then. I do suggest moving the article to a more neutral title and making the present information into a section, though. Melchoir 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. A genuine concept in the field, and the sources prove it so. Black-Velvet 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I closed this a few moments ago, but I forgot that I can't close AFD discussions that have both withdrawn nominations and delete votes (there is one delete vote). The discussion has been reopened due to my mistake. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Interesting and notable concept in IT fields, with sources. - CNichols 00:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is an intersting topic, and the content is accurate and sited. --Thebigjc 05:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I've been in the IT industry for too long, and I've heard it used and used it myself Fiddle Faddle 20:56, 4 July 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.