Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Service-oriented Software Engineering
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MuZemike (talk | contribs) at 22:24, 13 October 2010 (→Service-oriented Software Engineering: Closing AFD. Article kept.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 22:24, 13 October 2010 by MuZemike (talk | contribs) (→Service-oriented Software Engineering: Closing AFD. Article kept.)
- 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 keep per the improvements made late in the deletion discussion, which have not been refuted by the deletion side. –MuZemike 22:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Service-oriented Software Engineering (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)
No evidence that this concept is notable within the computing field. No references at all. Article was PRODded, original author promised to improve it but hasn't touched the article for more than a year. That's plenty of time to see improvement, but there's been none. Time to go now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, with possible later re-creation. Service-oriented software engineering (SOSE) does exist, but there is no information in this stub worth keeping. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, with possible merge or later re-creation. Agree with Radagast3; might be worth another attempt as part of the software engineering page, but there's nothing here right now. -- BenTels (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
- Redirect, weakly. The current title is a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. Current text says this is a software engineering methodology based on service-orientation. Now, "service-orientation" has an unreadable and vague article that, to the extent it's about anything, would appear to be about software. That article has its own set of problems, and probably qualifies for deletion in its current state, but would appear to cover anything that might be said here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge GScholar shows many articles (e.g., the doctoral dissertation [1]). Anything "service-oriented" suffers from the vagueness of that term (cf. Service-oriented_architecture). However, there's "something there" there. I'll add more cites later. — HowardBGolden (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More University of Notre Dame has a Service-oriented Software Engineering Group that has already published four articles. There have been two international workshops on service oriented software engineering: In 2006 as part of the International Conference on Software Engineering and in 2007 as part of the The 6th joint meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. Also, there is the Fourth IEEE International Symposium on Service-Oriented System Engineering, SOSE 2008 (I'm not sure what happened to the Third one!) Anyway, there's plenty of material. I think notability is shown. — HowardBGolden (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Weak delete, with possible later creation - I agree with Radagast and BenTelz. There's nothing here worth keeping right now. MJ94 (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Plain old straight up Delete Per it has no content, no one is working on it, and it fails all three core criteria at the moment, isn't sourced, isn't verifiable, and therefore isn't notable. Sven Manguard Talk 04:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's not even enough information to merge into another article. No objection to it being created with actual information later though --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 06:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Request Please don't close this AfD for at least 24 hours. I'm researching articles behind IEEE's paywall and will add summaries of the IEEE papers to the article. — HowardBGolden (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been sitting dormant for more than a year, and this AfD has been relisted twice, and you want more time? Really? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, really. Please note that I became aware of this article on 21 September 2010. Since then, I've established notability (see above). Now I will add these citations and summaries to the article. Those supporting deletion should be following WP policy and improving the article using the citations, not calling for its deletion. The issue for an AfD is whether the topic is notable, not the quality of the article. A constructive action would be to request help from the WP:SOFTWARE, which I am doing contemporaneously. Also, I'm requesting 24 hours to add content and citations myself. I'd appreciate any help that participants in this discussion are willing to offer. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this AfD was just relisted today, you probably have a bit more than 24 hours, but don't push your luck on time. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, really. Please note that I became aware of this article on 21 September 2010. Since then, I've established notability (see above). Now I will add these citations and summaries to the article. Those supporting deletion should be following WP policy and improving the article using the citations, not calling for its deletion. The issue for an AfD is whether the topic is notable, not the quality of the article. A constructive action would be to request help from the WP:SOFTWARE, which I am doing contemporaneously. Also, I'm requesting 24 hours to add content and citations myself. I'd appreciate any help that participants in this discussion are willing to offer. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been sitting dormant for more than a year, and this AfD has been relisted twice, and you want more time? Really? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. HowardBGolden (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google news is four results, although I'm not sure if any of those count as reliable sources. Google books has over 60 results, and this does seem to be a real thing, entire books published just about it, with others just mentioning it in them. And Google scholar gets results as well. Deletion is not for notable topics, just because they are currently short. Many articles start off like this. Just tag it with a stub template, and let it be. Dream Focus 19:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, now that HowardBGolden has made a viable article out of it. Jack Merridew 05:37, 7 October 2010 (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.