Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POHMELFS (3rd 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 merge to Elliptics . Consensus that there's not enough coverage for a specific article, but there is support for inclusion of some material at Elliptics. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POHMELFS

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

Dead software project that, in the words of its author, "lived in [the Linux kernel] for years effectively without usage case". Mentioned in Linux Magazine, but that "article" is for a large part of a copy-paste of the project website, so its status as an independent, reliable source is questionable. The only good source I could find is LWN, which described the project in 2008 as "the start of a proof of concept". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm an avid linux user, but this is a truly non-notable project. I'm not even sure if I'd give it a passing mention in the article on the Linux Kernel, or on distributed file systems. --Slashme (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elliptics. Article from Linux Magazine doesn't seem to be copy-paste to me. If I am not missing something, together with LWN article (and probably Phoronix piece) these publications allow the subject to pass WP:GNG. Still, this filesystem was never reported to be used, so it probably doesn't deserve its own article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the second half summarizes a list of features straight from the POHMELFS website, without verifying whether any of those features are really there. But merging to Elliptics is a good idea. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 16:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 01:23, 9 May 2014 (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.