Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RandR

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 redirect to X.Org Server. Content remains in the history for merging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RandR

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable at all. PROD declined by a single-purpose IP editor. wumbolo ^^^ 09:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to X.Org Server, though really this will be mostly a redirect to a one or two line comment or maybe to an extensions section. Quite like the article but shame about the unlikelihood of references and that parts would likely need to be moderated as a how-to. Happy to goto Keep if sources emerge.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to X.Org Server per Djm-leighpark. — Newslinger talk 13:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With a simple WP:BEFORE-type of search, I added three book refs and a Linux Journal ref to the article verifying some basic facts about RandR and its clients. There is clearly secondary sourcing for the basics of this protocol and its clients. I'm not sure there is enough depth on these sources to support a standalone article. But verifiable content, per policy, should be preserved if reasonable. In this case, a selective merge to X.Org Server is a good approach to preservation. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, ok, but where? Because technically, this is an X extension designed in 2001, three years before the X.Org takeover (source: J. Gettys, K. Packard (2001) The X Resize and Rotate Extension - RandR - 2001 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, FREENIX Track) --JavierCantero (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with consensus, however as I understand it RandR became used in X.org Server I'd I'd prefer to 'home' it where it is than was, but I'll readily defer the merge target to those who know better or who are actually doing a merge.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From The X Resize, Rotate and Reflect Extension - Version 1.1 (2002-10-4): "It is based on the X Resize and Rotate Extension as specified in the Proceedings of the 2001 Usenix Technical Conference. RandR as implemented and integrated into the XFree86 server differs in one substantial fashion from the design discussed in that paper: that is, RandR 1.0 does not implement the depth switching described in that document, and the support described for that in the protocol in that document and in the XFree86 implementation has been removed from the protocol described here." The first RandR version for the X.Org Server was the 1.2, hence my doubts. --JavierCantero (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Weak Keep - to X.Org Server , an alternative would be X Window System. I can understand why it was created, but it's either borderline N, or non-N without many sources. Widefox; talk 22:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Searching tech sources I find minor mentions like [1] and short articles such as [2] and a chapter in ISBN 978-0-13-148005-6 and a chapter in ISBN 978-0-596-10195-4. PaleAqua (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW it might be easier to search for xrandr to avoid false positives of sources talking about the pseudo-random number generator rand_r. PaleAqua (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As there is some possibility this is one of a number of articles where a non-admin closure might be regarded as controversial can I respectfully request closure only by admins. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2018 (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.