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.
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:15.211.153.80 with the following rationale "1) a simple google news search is enough to establish sufficient RS coverage 2) prod rationale too generic". Well, WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a very good argument, and not meeting GNG is a pretty big problem and sufficient explanation for rationale for deletion. One good source I see is [1], but I don't think this is sufficient, other sources are less reliable/more niche and in passing. Anyway, we are here now - let see if others can find better sources/arguments in defense of this, or not. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For start brief OpenVZ tutorial in Linux Format magazine:
Sharma, Mayank (April 2010). "Hardcore Linux, OpenVZ: Fast virtualisation". Linux Format. No. 130. Future plc. pp. 96–99. ISSN1470-4234.
Hussain, Shuveb (May 2009). "Containing Linux Instances with OpenVZ". Linux For You. No. 76. EFY. pp. 66–70. ISSN0974-1054.
I also found mentions of OpenVZ in two InfoWorld articles (one about server virtualization - 12 February 2007; another about Virtuozzo platform - 3 July 2006). There are few short news on German heise.de - I will look into online sources later. Pavlor (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now some online sources: [2] (German heise.de/iX magazine - 2016 article about OpenVZ 7); [3] (again heise.de/iX magazine - 2006 short news); [4] (The Register; 3 mentions in big article about history of virtualization, 2011). There seems to be few other pages in German language media (eg. PC Welt article reposted from Pro-Linux.de) - more later. Pavlor (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, but this proposal just reeks of bad science. Anybody who knows the hosting industry well enough also knows that OpenVZ is one of the most popular tools (if not THE most popular tool) out there. It's used literally by thousands of hosting businesses due to its ease of integration into WHMCS, another popular item. You say that WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a strong argument (God, when will this wikilawyering stop!), but alas "The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet.". Tools used for internet hosting ARE (by definition) one of those things that are the most well-sourced online, so arguing that Google's irrelevant here is kinda indicative to ulterior motives. -- CoolKoon (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Oh and besides, had you bothered to click on the books link above (which you obviously didn't, otherwise you'd see how pointless your proposal is), you would've seen that it's referenced by 95 books as well. It's hard to find any stronger case against the deletion than that. -- CoolKoon (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of these books are reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes - some publishers publish anything you throw at them without any quality check (eg. this one [5] from Packt Publishing). Pavlor (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine. How about "Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment" published by Springer Science & Business Media? Or "Virtual Networks: Pluralistic Approach for the Next Generation of Internet" by John Wiley & Sons? Then there's "Testbeds and Research Infrastructures, Development of Networks and Communities" by Springer and "Practical Virtualization Solutions: Virtualization from the Trenches" by Pearson Education. The list just goes on and on with books of publishers you could hardly argue about. Like I said before: only a person who knows nothing about system administration and virtualization could nominate the OpenVZ article for deletion based on its lack of notability. The fact that one hasn't heard about it on FB or 9gag doesn't make it obscure or irrelevant. -- CoolKoon (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selection of few useable sources looks much better than plain statement "it's referenced by 95 books", when some of them are pure junk. Now, is there someone able enough to use some of these sources to improve the article? I must admit, I know next to nothing about virtualization... Pavlor (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, could you blame me if it's obvious that the OP didn't do his homework? Like I said before, I still have a feeling that this AfD entry has been spawned not because of decluttering reasons, but more due to the fact that somebody wants to see this article gone for some reason. To me it's almost as ridiculous as e.g. marking up the cPanel for deletion would be (which is a de facto industry standard).
As for the content, the only thing to add (that comes to my mind) is something about the host/guest systems on which it's confirmed to be running fine. Which'll necessitate some googling. That said, such addition definitely wouldn't prevent any other "seasoned" editor from coming around and marking it for deletion (again) just because he/she hasn't heard about it... -- CoolKoon (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References in the article are too weak to show notability (only golem.de may be RS). That alone cries for AfD nomination. I will try to add some of the sources listed in this AfD to the article, but my knowledge of virtualization is weak at best. Pavlor (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty coverage in reliable sources to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 31 hits on IEEE Xplore, 27 hits on ACM Digital Library. I think this is sufficiently covered by the academic literature to justify a conclusion that it is notable. SJK (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely used in the industry ... in fact I came here from Google after looking for information about it despite being a (somewhat) regular editor. Very surprised that in light of the above it's being considered. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2017 (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.