Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southbeach notation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.49.157.203 (talk) at 09:50, 1 October 2010 (→Southbeach notation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Southbeach notation

Southbeach notation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "visual modeling language" does not appear to be notable. It is mentioned in passing in one book. Aside from that, I was unable to find mention of it in anything at all other than primary sources, and vanishingly few of them, despite searching in Google Scholar, Google Books, the web, and the news archive. Bongomatic 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mbonline (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

  • Delete No coverage in news or academic sources, a couple of self-published sources and some trivial mentions. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I visited this page to refer a link to a colleague and was surprised to see it recommended for deletion. The references above certainly show the noteworthiness of Southbeach Notation. As with any innovation in its early stage, there may be little mass media coverage, but this is certainly an innovation in the process of innovation and will grow way beyond the companies mentioned above and individuals looking for a tool to implement TRIZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.ashcroft (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As with any innovation in its early stage, there may be little mass media coverage - which is an argument for deleting it, not keeping it - we aren't a publisher of original thought. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a publisher of original thought? Southbeach Notation has been covered many times, just not by Mass Media, e.g., NYT, WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.ashcroft (talk • contribs) 18:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I (Roger Burlton) am an original founder of the BPM field and have taught process improvement classes since 1991 and am President of Process Renewal Consulting Group a company that teaches process methdodologies. I am the author of "Business Process Management: Profiting from Process" published by Sams Publishing a division of Pearson Education. We use TRIZ and Southbeach Notation in our consulting practice worldwide. The approach and notation have been taught to over fifty companies including Samsung in Korea, Export Development Corporation in Canada, Bureau of Labour Statistics in Australia and Mars Inc. in the US. In addition it has been taught in numerous seminars and conferences around the world for three years with great acceptance. Our clients have found it to be a well formed standard that is based on a sound framework. We urge you to keep the listing of the notation as it is rapidly becoming a tool of choice for Innovation and process improvement projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.55.153 (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Delete Okay, great, it appears to be a subset of UML. Fantastic. So what? A couple of big name, notable companies are purportedly using it. Again, so what? Big notable companies may be using it, but notability is not inherited, nor contagious, in this specific instance. What's the novelty of this particular brand of UML diagramming that's so breathtakingly revolutionary and more to the point who's reported on it? What tech-oriented blogs/magazines/niche compu-geek tv programs/cable channels have covered it? Also, two of the articles cited are little more than marketing press releases sent out from the company behind Southbeach Notation and "published" by BPTrends.Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:36, 24 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) 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Mtiffany71 seems to have misread the article, which does not say that Southbeach is a subset of UML but rather contrasts UML to Southbeach Notation because UML diagrams represent an objective model of a system whereas Southbeach Notation diagrams represent a subjective model of a system - that is to say, elements of the system are each categorised as useful or harmful according to what people's opinions are rather than acording to what the facts are - as whether something is useful or harmful can only be judged from a certain perspective of what you want to use that thing for or how it affects your solution, job or life. (This is clearly evident in humanity's history - its why we vote, argue, debate, have wikipedia processes for determining the notability of things, ...) It is the collection of multiple models from different perspectives that is one of the features that makes this different to methods like UML. The point is that Southbeach provides a mechanism to get concensus between people who disagree about something... perhaps we should create a Southbeach Notation model for whether to keep this page! Once you can see that people with different values or beliefs, or people in roles with different goals, view the same thing differently - one thinking it is harmful and the other thinking it is useful, then you can use decomposition within Southbeach to understand WHAT about it they see as different - thus breaking the system down into smaller and smaller parts until agreement is reached... e.g. a car is useful for travel but it also creates pollution and hence damages the environment, so is undoubtedly also harmful... once the different aspects of a car are broken down within a Southbeach model, clarity is created about HOW and WHERE to improve the system - rather than arguing about whether we should have cars at all we can discuss how to minimise their pollution, noise, etc. This comment also addresses a point above questioning what is different about this technique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonline (talk • contribs) 10:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Southbeach provides a mechanism to get concensus between people who disagree about something... perhaps we should create a Southbeach Notation model for whether to keep this page! There is more chance of me sucking off a pit-pony. We work this out according to policy and wikipedia guidelines - currently the article doesn't have a single reliable source that is not by one of the creators. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a wiki, not a reliable source. If you have any links that meet the guidelines, or any policy- / guideline-based arguments, please air them.
I think this is borderline and a matter of interpretation. The list of references is not insignificant. Argey (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the references at the wiki you cited—they are by the author of the system, and hence not independent. Bongomatic 06:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki entry referenced is nothing to do with the authors and if you look in the history page for that article you can see it was created by a sysop at that site. Mbonline (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the wiki is not a reliable source—period. That article (which itself fails to demonstrate notability at all) cites two references. Those references are not independent of the subject, and cannot be used to establish notability. Bongomatic 10:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears that many of the editors who have opined here are closely related to the subject.
Their comments appear to reflect conflicts of interest or at least lack of independence from the subject and should be discounted accordingly. Bongomatic 10:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Bongomatic appears to have so much fun trying to guess people's names, even when they openly state them here and in profiles on the Web, I wonder if Bongomatic could openly say who he/she is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is little fun in trying to figure who all these editors are--who all appear to be saying the exact same thing, who have all been working on similar topics, etc. Asking Bongo to reveal their identity is a silly remark. Either way, the closing administrator will, no doubt, see these different, or not so different, votes and voters for what they're worth. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've looked and this again and cut it back to the sources used - and frankly they are rubbishI've been asked to clarify this statements - 'Rubbish' in terms of helping determining notability as we consider it rather than any statement about the individual merits of the works as documents --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC) - every single one is by Howard Smith, one of the inventors of article subject. There is not a single RS in there. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its clear that the article needs to be revised to make it less like a manual however you have also removed much of the text that explains how this topic relates to other topics, and in what ways it is similar and different. Rather than getting into a debate about that, it seems more pertinent to close the discussion on whether there should be an article at all, which presumably is why you cut the text down. (Is that standard procedure? Should that not have been something that was discussed in this page? I have for now added a single additional reference in which is an example of how Southbeach Notation has been used in the world, citing a news article published by a number of independent members of another organisation working in another field. The PDF in the citation is a report they produced on ways in which the Australian Water crisis could be addressed, summarised as a Southbeach Notation diagram showing the useful and harmful factors at play in Australia's Murray-Darling basin and the potential interventions they could make to reduce the impact of the crisis. The challenge they have there is that people are using water from the basin in ways that they consider useful as it nourishes their crops, but the long term effect is actually harmful as the water that once stretched to the sea does not even reach now and is drying up, resulting in crops failing due to people taking water out of the ecosystem faster than it can be replenished. The reason Southbeach Notation is so relevant there is that it provides a way of combining different points of view to help gain concensus on solutions that could help everyone - e.g. many of the solutions were to do with how to water farms more efficiently, or prevent evaporation of water from the soil around crops rather than simply preventing farming. Do you think this citation is the kind of material people are asking for here? Mbonline (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added an additional viewpoint from the same article that provides a more balanced view, stating that critics of situational modelling techniques believe that actions are more important than abstract models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonline (talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this citation is the kind of material people are asking for here? no it's trivial and while it has a diagram, it says absolutely nothing about the system or provides any sort of notability. We need reliable sources of the sort described at WP:RS not more... puff. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is how I regard the 'debate' taking place here. The carefully prepared and substantive content, with references, citations and notability has been reduced and modified by 'Wikipedians' to the extent that it no longer represents an accurate and sufficient description of Southbeach Notation. If left here, it will be perpetuated through license and distort the good reputation of Southbeach Notation. Entirely calm, neutral and unemotional attempts to enter into a debate with 'Wikipedians' about the content, who seek to delete the page, have led to little more than:
    • 1) Inappropriate language directed at individuals well intentions points, including direct insults and vulgar language - contrary to the rules of Wikipedia and verging on libel/slander
    • 2) Inaccurate conclusions drawn about calm and reasoned contributions to the content
    • 3) Irrelevant statements against third party experts trying to contribute to the debate
    • 4) failure by 'Wikipedians' to abide by their own rules of conduct despite setting out reasoned comments and trying to enter into the spirit of Wikipedia
    • Therefore, I no longer have the time or patience to be insulted here or for colleagues to be insulted, and will not be contributing further. I fear more insults and a resource-intensive never ending process. Smithh (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Smithh (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is getting a bit out of hand. MTiffany, there is no need to yell at the opposition. Opposition, flooding the AfD with non-reliable references and marshaling what appear to be accounts related to the creators of the topic, that always gives off a bad smell. And please don't throw around terms like "libel"--this is not the place for that. As for policy: if "mass media" like the NYT haven't reported on it (as one of you said), that's a pretty good indication of lack of notability. Given that the only sources for the article (and I am disregarding the many, many non-notable or unreliable sources provided above) are closely connected to the creator of the subject or are not reliable (the "Circle of Blue" document), we have no choice but to conclude--based on policy!--that the topic is not notable by our standards. That doesn't mean that the topic isn't great, or won't be great, of course. But it fails Wikipedia's standards, for now. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AYFKM? Yelling at the opposition? Please... First, 'the Intertoobz is serious bizness.' Second, I raised a perfectly valid point that the sources cited for Southbeach notation appeared to be press releases written by the makers of Southbeach notation. That's not notability, that's self-promotion. Rather than refuting that point, Smithh starts whinging about 'libel/slander' (and for the record, Smithh, slander is spoken), and how unfair (and I love the scare-quotes) 'Wikipedians' are being because some of us don't think his new invention is notable enough for inclusion in WP. Mtiffany71 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to put on record in the history: The original attackers of this article used Web searches to find associations between people who were trying professionally to add content to substantiate the claims, as requested by Wikipedians. They then used these implied associations to cast aspersions on people's professional integrity. When we suggested the 'editors' should be equally open about their identity, I was threatened with removal of my account from Wikipedia. 'Editors' then had comments I made deleted. so, its one rule for 'them' and another for 'us'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 10:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google searches with wiki mirrors eliminated produce almost entirely sites that are trying to promote Southbeach. If it takes off in the future, and gets proper independent coverage, the article can always be recreated. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Commenters above have adequately shown, IMO, that the topic lacks sufficient real-world coverage. The article seems to be puffed up with business-ese that doesn't say much concrete. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not say much now. But it did. Look at history.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Southbeach_notation&oldid=388072184"