Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship Approach to Systems Development: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:47, 14 February 2022

Revision as of 18:23, 12 April 2022

Line 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><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#FF0000;">St</FONTspan><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#FF5500;">ar</FONTspan><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#FF8000;">bli</FONTspan><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#FFC000;">nd</FONTspan></b> 06:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

::'''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><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#FF0000;">St</FONTspan><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#FF5500;">ar</FONTspan><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#FF8000;">bli</FONTspan><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#FFC000;">nd</FONTspan></b> 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''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|<font color="blue" face="Matisse ITC">Charlene</font>]] 06:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. 0 ghits, no sources, advert, not verifiable, original research, poor tone.-'''[[User:HisSpaceResearch|h i s]]''' ^{''[[User talk:HisSpaceResearch|s p a c e]]''} _{'''[[Special:Contributions/HisSpaceResearch|r e s e a r c h]]'''} 10:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)