Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship Approach to Systems Development: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
FisherQueen (talk | contribs) Is this clear? |
|||
Line 16:
*I am not sure why there seems to be so much hostility, but RASD is very credible. The methodlogy has been around for many years and used by many companies. As Dhartung stated, I am the autor of the methdology. RASD was specifically designed to mitigate issues with COTS. I surely hope Wikipedia is more professional than my short experience seems to lend. I am sure the company will base its judgment on fact, not opinion. This will be my last post. [[User:Itsme01|Itsme01]] 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::*I'm sorry that you've found the discussion hostile and unprofessional; I've tried really hard to make sure that the [[WP:N|criteria]] we're basing the decision on are clear to you, and been very careful not to just use Wikipedia jargon that you might not be familiar with. The heart of the discussion is whether or not RASD is [[WP:N|notable]]. What would really help show that RASD meets the [[WP:N|notability criteria]] are some sources- articles about it in trade journals, magazines, even detailed reviews of it from significant software-related web sites. The question of comprehensibility is important but secondary; if we could verify that the subject is [[WP:N|notable]], we would be open to rewriting the article so that it can be understood by a more general audience. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]] ([[User talk:FisherQueen|Talk]]) 04:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:**'''Response''' I don't know why I'm responding to this, as it does not relate directly to the AfD discussion, but here goes anyway: (1) What hostility? I haven't seen any hostility, only the wikipedia community at work (and working very well, mind you). (2) If you want more clarfication, I advise that you look at [[WP:NOTE]] and [[WP:NOT#GUIDE]]. These can be very helpful. (3) What company? [[User:Calgary|Calgary]] 04:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
| |||