Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship Approach to Systems Development

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 delete. WjBscribe 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship Approach to Systems Development

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. FisherQueen (Talk) 01:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure what it is, but it looks like WP:OR or a WP:HOWTO Corpx 02:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsme01 (talk • contribs)

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 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. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Calgary 02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsme01 (talk • contribs)

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 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 ~~DELETE~~ Strong Delete Calgary 03:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have read the artical several times and i'm still not sure what it is. Oyster guitarist 02:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparent WP:VSCA, I know what software methodologies are, I'm not snowed by the jargon, and this is not a notable one. I think this guru.com page says all you need to know: Tracy Oden is a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) strategy, methodology, implementation and change management expert. She is the author of a CRM implementation methodology entitled The Relationship Approach to Systems Development (RASD)™. There are literally no other relevant results on Google Web, Google Books, Google News or Google News Archive. Widely used methodologies are written about endlessly in terms of case studies, how-tos and so forth. This one hasn't been. --Dhartung | Talk 03:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Itsme01 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you've found the discussion hostile and unprofessional; I've tried really hard to make sure that the 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 notable. What would really help show that RASD meets the 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 notable, we would be open to rewriting the article so that it can be understood by a more general audience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 04:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? Calgary 04:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 notable, as attested to by 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 no 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. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've ~~slept through~~ 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. --Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Charlene 06:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 0 ghits, no sources, advert, not verifiable, original research, poor tone.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Spam. -- RHaworth 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An object lesson in why editors with a conflict of interest should not write articles. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement delete. A classic example of 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. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 how to guide. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pile of VSCA. Iterator12n ^Talk 04:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the deletes above. Darrenhusted 12:26, 15 July 2007 (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.