Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship Approach to Systems Development: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (4x) Tag: Fixed lint errors |
|||
(6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
===[[Relationship Approach to Systems Development]]===▼
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''delete'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
▲===[[Relationship Approach to Systems Development]]===
:{{la|Relationship Approach to Systems Development}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship Approach to Systems Development|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 9#{{anchorencode:Relationship Approach to Systems Development}}|View log]])</noinclude>
This is a very long article. I'm not sure quite what it's about, because it's rather thick with jargon, but my best guess is that it's an advertisement of some kind. As far as I can tell, it doesn't assert notability, and it lacks reliable sources. Prod removed by creator without comment. [[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]] ([[User talk:FisherQueen|Talk]]) 01:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Not sure what it is, but it looks like [[WP:OR]] or a [[WP:HOWTO]] [[User:Corpx|Corpx]] 02:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Question''' On what do you base your opinion? RASD is a software RAD methodology used by many Fortune 500 companies. This is my first post. I may need help in writing the article, but the methodology is real.
::'''Answer''' (1) I cannot tell what this is, and the phrase 'software RAD methodology' doesn't mean anything to me. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and articles need to be understandable to the layperson. (2) I cannot see any assertion that this software RAD methodology meets the [[WP:N|notability requirements]]. (3) There are no independent sources cited that would confirm the information. To avoid deletion, you would need to rewrite the article so that a general audience can understand it, explaining why this software RAD methodology is important, and providing sources - multiple sources independent of the company that have written about this software RAD methodology. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]] ([[User talk:FisherQueen|Talk]]) 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I just read the article, and I still have no idea what it's talking about. I'm guessing that this mightmeet the criteria for deletion simply because it seem to be a piece of copywritten trade-related promotional paraphernalia. Still, I'm not voting because I still don't really understand it. To make things easier for us, and simply because wikipedia is meant to be accessible to the general public, I ask that ''anyone who understands the article, please edit it accordingly, and if you can't be bothered to do that, at least tell us what on earth it's talking about''. [[User:Calgary|Calgary]] 02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*A link has been added to define a RAD. I will add additional links for clarity. Please click on the RAD, RUP, SDLC link for additional clarity. RASD is a software methodology useful for implementing package applications. If you were a software development professional, you would probably immediately understand its worth. Please refrain from deleting until the article can be fully posted over the next few days. It would be a disservice to the software community.
:*Yes, that's part of my concern. I understand that some wikipedia articles af primarily of interest to certain groups, but I'm pretty sure that articles should be written in a style that makes the information accessible to wikipedia's diverse audience I mean, I have trouble reading articles about mathematical formulas, but in that case the article is usually well-written, and it's my fault because I'm not exceptional with math. This article, however, is long-winded and pedantic, and so heavily leaden with jargon that I'd be surprised if ''anyone'' other than a software development professional would understand it. I'm also concerned that the article is only of significance to a very specific group (the afforementioned software community). In any case, I've found the justification for deletion. The article makes no assertion of [[WP:NOTE|notability]], even within the software community. Even more to the point, it appears to be in pretty strong violation of [[WP:NOT#GUIDE]]. So I'm going to have to go with <s>'''DELETE'''</s> '''Strong Delete''' [[User:Calgary|Calgary]] 03:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I have read the artical several times and i'm still not sure what it is. [[User:Oysterguitarist|Oyster]][[User talk:Oysterguitarist|'''guitarist''']] 02:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Line 19 ⟶ 24:
::*'''Response''' Itsme01, I'm sure it is a ''credible'' system. I'm aware of many credible approaches, but the ones we are concerned with on Wikipedia (which is a community, not a company) are those that are [[WP:N|notable]], as attested to by [[WP:RS|independent third parties]]. Let me say that I was particularly struck that although the article attributes the origin of the system to Trinity Technologies, there is [http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atrinitysystemstech.com+rasd&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a no] [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=J9l&q=site%3Atrinitysystemstech.com+relationship.approach&btnG=Search mention] of RASD on that company's website. I know that the software consultancy I worked for had its own homegrown system (openly adapted from the [[Microsoft Solutions Framework]]) and made sure potential clients knew it. I can also understand that a methodology is developed in-house by professionals who take it forward as their intellectual property. In either case, the notability of these methods (or lack thereof) is established by writings about the system in trade magazines and on websites and forums. It isn't hard to find discussion of Agile or Extreme programming, for example, because their practitioners can't stop writing (or arguing) about them. In this case, as accomplished an achievement as creating a methodology may be, this one hasn't yet found an audience, so far as we can see, beyond internal client communications. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 06:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' The article is chock-full of gems like "''During the RASD Plan Phase an RASD Enterprise Application Architecture (EAA) blueprint is created. This mission critical blueprint is is necessary to ensure enterprise application design to include global functionality, regional usability and localized flexibility''" It's like something Dilbert's Pointy-Haired Boss character would write. If this is something that deserves an article, it sure as heck deserves a better one than this. Do people somewhere actually write things like this and keep a straight face? Another excerpt: "''Enable the implementer to more succesfully consolidate and/or replace legacy systems in a more orderly and logical fashion. Mitigate bugs and defects throught the incremental and iterative development build and/or deploy process.'' It's like the world's dullest magnetic poetry. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><
::'''Comment''' I've <s>slept through</s> attended many meetings and PowerPoint seminars where language like that was not only acceptable, but expected. Surprisingly, in context, much of it tends to make sense. But our article shouldn't regurgitate slide show language, no. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 06:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I like how much of it can be rearranged without any noticable difference in meaning. For example, would the bit I quoted above mean something different if it said "''...global usability, regional flexibility, and localized functionality''"? Or any combination thereof? I'm sorta glad I don't understand this article at all. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><
*'''Delete'''. This is the best example of marketese mumbo-jumbo I've read in a while. Articles in the English Wikipedia should really be in Standard English, and they should be about things whose notability is clear and verified with attribution to reliable sources. Edited to add: I am a writer. I am a ''professional'' writer. If I handed in an project that was written like this, I would be fired on the spot. --[[User:Charlene.fic|<
*'''Delete'''. 0 ghits, no sources, advert, not verifiable, original research, poor tone.-'''[[User:HisSpaceResearch|h i s]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:HisSpaceResearch|s p a c e]]''</sup> <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/HisSpaceResearch|r e s e a r c h]]'''</sub> 10:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Non-notable. Spam. -- [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. An object lesson in why editors with a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] should not write articles. [[User:Kim dent brown|<
*Vehement '''delete'''. A classic example of [[WP:BOLLOCKS|complete bollocks]]. Indeed, my pathetic attempt to state the obvious in abstract, padded malarkey seems dull and uninspired compared to this masterpiece. Perhaps this is [[BJAODN]] material. - [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', per many of the above arguments, esp. [[User:Kim dent brown]]. I'll change my !vote if the article is substantially rewritten to be more comprehensible to the average reader. At the very minimum, it needs a clear novice-level introduction explaining the notability of the subject. The details could be in an expert section. But it shouldn't be a [[WP:NOT#GUIDE|how to]] guide. [[User:Flyguy649|Flyguy649]] [[User talk:Flyguy649|<sup>talk
*'''Delete''', pile of VSCA. [[User:Iterator12n|Iterator12n]] <
*'''Delete''', per the deletes above. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 12:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
|