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. (non-admin closure)  —HueSatLum 15:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Software system

[edit]
Software system (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)

Contested prod. Sat here unreferenced for years. The topic is arguably notable, but we have no article here to justify it. There's no content here beyond "Software systems are systems of software." There are now some references, but there was a time when an encyclopedia involved editorial work, more than just pasting string overlaps from Google. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the article is referenced and the term is defined and used in standard software engineering textbooks like Ian Somerville's Software Engineering book (in Chapter 1). The term is also defined further in the overview of this article (read further than the first sentence!). — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Although maybe not that popular, the term is used in books and articles where software is seen as a component in systems engineering. There is also an award named after it, from the well known organisation Association for Computing Machinery: ACM Software System Award -- SchreyP (messages) 20:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll be honest with you, I find the article difficult to understand so it's difficult for me to really assess what this concept means, but it's notable from what I gather. A citation from the ACM good enough for me. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the nomination here: there's nothing wrong with the topic but the article still fails to convey any encyclopedic content sufficient to justify the expenditure of bytes on storing it. If we are to have any sense of quality in articles, we have to draw a line somewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. My original prod rationale still stands: "It really is a synonym for software and should be redirected there. A merge has been proposed but there is nothing to merge in my opinion.". Sources only show that the term is used but not the correlation with systems theory/engineering or its difference with the simpler "software":
  1. I don't have access to it as it is offline, but has the convenient title "What is software"?
  2. No mention of systems theory/engineering in the "Home" and "About" pages of the Institute's website. Does not support the sentence.
  3. Note the interposing and. Moreover, the link points to a list of publications without explaining anything.
  4. Finally, the ACM Software System Award article supports my position so much it is nearly embarassing. Just follow every product wikilink and read the first sentence.
Disclaimer: I am a software developer. --M4gnum0n (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the correlation with systems theory/engineering is somewhat weak, but does exist. Some people support that, but not all software architects, etc. Yet it is a distinct concept from "software" itself. Think of a simple difference: the term "software" does not generally encompass the test suites that are used on it, interviews with end-users as they use it, etc. Those are not programs as such, but part of the bigger entity: the "software system". I have started touching it up, and added a reference for that statement. But one could write 20 pages on this really. History2007 (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are two possible, and exclusive, interpretations of "system" in this context: software and ancillaries (as you describe them), but also large networks of software components, where each component was developed independently. Where there is any sourcing in this article, it's referring to the second form. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so, although I have seen wider use for the first case. And I added a first source for that. There are more that can be added. And what you said in effect suggests "distributed software system" as an issue. But in any case, both scenarios suggest a keep vote in my view. History2007 (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4gnum0n (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that notability has never been a problem with this article. See my original PROD reason. --M4gnum0n (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2012 (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.
More