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. Tone 19:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Core-and-pod[edit]

Core-and-pod (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)

This article, besides being an orphan, a stub, and poorly referenced, deals with a topic which is arcane to most readers, bordering on the irrelevant. The topic itself has few mentions on the internet and appears to be highly technical and only applicable to a very narrow context. For this reason, I propose that it be deleted. No improvement has been made on the poor quality of the article since it was created, and it gets only a small number of hits each month. werewolf (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - merging this article with Data center network architectures might be the best solution. As I understand it, Core and pod is a type of data center network. It could therefore be listed with the other ones (including Three-tier) listed in the architectures article. My knowledge of this subject is very limited. Rogermx (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The OP presents a long list of rationales that are all not valid reasons to delete. Being an orphan is not grounds for deletion (WP:ORPHS). Being a stub is not grounds for deletion (WP:TOOLITTLE). Being poorly referenced is not grounds for deletion (unreferenced is not the same as unverifiable WP:UNRS). Being arcane, technical, or narrow, is not grounds for deletion, indeed, it is the mission of Wikipedia to gather all human information. Not being worked on (WP:NOTIMELIMIT,WP:NOIMPROVEMENT and WP:IMPATIENT) is not grounds for deletion. Being poorly written is not grounds for deletion ([[WP:RUBBISH}. Having few pageviews is not grounds for deletion (WP:NOBODYREADSIT). It's almost like you are trying to go for a full house on arguments to avoid at AfD.

Is the page capable of being expanded into a substantial article? The book Inventing the Cloud Century covers the concept at length over several pages and I am seeing a number of scholarly papers that have some coverage. This document is from a supplier, so not neutral, but does explain the concept quite clearly. So yes, this can be turned into a decent article and should be kept and allowed to grow. SpinningSpark 23:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Spinningspark. Mccapra (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2019 (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.