Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebasing

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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebasing

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

This page claims to be a disambiguation page, but none of the referenced articles even mention the word "rebase" (at least not that I can see). In any case, most of this is OR and unreferenced. I started out by trying to clean this page up to meet WP:DAB standards, but as I got into it, I realized that by the time I was done cleaning it up, there would be nothing left. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not a dab page, but rebasing is definitely a term used in economics[1] and programming. I'm just not sure whether it merits an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be factual information. All the points can be sourced. I think it's worth keeping. Quite a widespread concept in the computing, rebasing DLL's, in the windows world, pre .NET. scope_creep (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a disambiguation page. I have no opinion on whether there should be an article on the topic. older ≠ wiser 14:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This seems to mean giving something a new base, or basis, and is used in various ways in different fields. If one of the processes itself is notable then write an article on that, like: Rebase (programming) or Rebase (economics). An article on the word "rebasing" itself is for a dictionary not an encyclopedia.Steve Dufour (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Steve's position. Off2riorob (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Relocation (computer science) - I was going to argue to Keep, but realized it would fit quite nicely in the Relocation article that mentions runtime relocation, which is essentially what rebasing is. Both articles are stubs and together they could present a better article on relocating program addresses which is an absolutely necessary concept and facility in modern multitasking operating systems, such as Windows and Linux, and mainframe OS. (See also: loaders). It's not a definition and it's not a DAB, it's a stub about a very serious, very necessary, and well referenced systems programming concept. And yes, I know what it is. The article has been here since December 2003 and has multiple good references, even if they aren't inline. As to mentions of the term "rebase", please note (walking down the reference list from the article): (1) The Levine book says (pg 218) "Microsoft calls run-time relocation rebasing." (2) In the Chen reference, the title of the article is "How did Windows 95 rebase DLLs?" (3) The tile of the Riemersma article is "Rebasing Win32 DLLs" (4) The Baker article is about using the REBASE tool from Microsoft. (5) The Caldato article has a section entitled "Avoid Rebasing". (6) The Biswas article has a section also entitled "Avoid Rebasing". (7) The Pietrek article has a section entitled "Base Relocations", which is what rebasing is. (7) The Asche article is entitled "Rebasing Win32 DLLs: The Whole Story". (9) The Thomas & Reddy article has a section entitled "Rebasing and binding in Windows". One could also do a Google search on "location rebasing" and come up with even more references. This article is rather technical and general readers may not get it, but that's a reason to write for the layman as well as the expert in operating systems internals, not to delete. I don't see this as original research at all, what with all the references. I would undertake to merge right now, but it's not a good idea to merge during an AfD. But I will with consensus. — Becksguy (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term rebasing is quite often used in the context of computer science and the article gives verifiable information. Consider renaming to Rebase (computer science) or merging with Relocation (computer science). Niky cz (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand commonly used term in distributed source control, covered in multiple published sources e.g. "Pro Git" by Scott Chacon has a whole chapter on it [2]. Even a cursory search on Google Scholar turns up several more. [3] [4] 86.143.181.89 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2010 (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.