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 speedy delete, copyright violation (see Uncle G's comment below). chaser - t 17:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random scheduling[edit]

Random scheduling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article as written is incomprehensible to the non-programmer. I tagged it for no-context, and it was curtly removed by another editor. Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can understand most of it and linked some terms. I agree that it still needs to be re-written a bit to be decipherable to the reasonably intelligent non-technical reader, but deletion is not a good solution.--chaser - t 04:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• AFD is not for cleanup. If the problem is that the article is fundamentally not encyclopedic or notable, I'd say delete, but it's clearly a notable concept in some respect that just needs to be cleaned up by an expert. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This appears to be a type of computer benchmark, however there is no mention of it at Benchmark (computing), so I suspect that this is not a notable technique. —BradV 05:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable and verifiable; see 522 Google Books hits. I found it perfectly clear, but maybe I'm too geek. If it can be expanded and clarified, great, but AfD is not cleanup. --Itub (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I can source this content to William Stallings' book Operating Systems (ISBN 9780136006329). In fact, the content is taken, word for word, from page 510 of that book (3rd paragraph). So speedy delete as a copyright violation.

  This isn't the best title to discuss the concept of scheduling policy and disk scheduling/I/O scheduling at. In context, a discussion such as this would even make sense to the layman. Indeed, Stalling's book uses "Disk Scheduling Policies" as the title of the section from which the paragraph was copied. Quite why people take discussions in sources like this, abstract a single paragraph from the middle of the discussion, and then use one item from that paragraph as the article title, is beyond me. It happened at Asynchronous error reporting (AfD discussion), too. Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2008 (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.