Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloud Computing Modeling Notation

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. The contributions of new and unregistered users have, as is customary, been given a reduced weighting. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Computing Modeling Notation

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fractionally better than original research. Total absence of independent references. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 01:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. The theme of the article is noteworthy, it's just not compliant with Wikipedia standards. I'd suggest get some help from field experts (we have a template for that, but I can't remember right now) to clean this up and add proper references. It could have been the case of deleting it if it was some 90's programming trend, but Cloud Computing is a recent field and it's bound to receive proper attention in the future. ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree to keep it! It will receive a great amount of attention and also open a dialog for future discussions. Carl presscott (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Carl Presscott 09:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Agree with Gabriel to keep this article because of public interest and the emerging cloud technologies. Richard.McGuire88 (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Richard McGuireRichard.McGuire88 (talk) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Delete? No. Maintain, evolve, and improve. This is my suggestion. The topic is popular and continues to occupy people's minds, especially in the business and IT worlds. AngelaMartin2008 (talk)Angela MartinAngelaMartin2008 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC). This template must be substituted.[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Article is apparently about making flowchart style diagrams that relate to "cloud computing". Not only original research, but vacuous patter about "new emerging technologies" as well: New emerging technologies and propositions have emerged to widen the scope of cloud computing to enable a standardized life cycle development. The cloud computing modeling paradigm then focuses on three different perspectives: infrastructure as a service modeling (IaaSM), software as a service modeling (SaaSM), and platform as as service modeling (PaaSM). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am against deleting it. In fact the article is about new modeling paradigms that have been recently established. I do not see any flowcharts, I see a language syntax and vocabulary that is used to describe reference cloud computing environments. Maria C Mosak (talk)Maria MosakMaria C Mosak (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Comment: I smell some WP:SPA here as well, but there have been significant improvements in terms of sources since the article was put on AfD, so I keep my opinion on it. Cut the authors some slack, they seem to be doing it in good faith. ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, please. I must say that I run into this article on Friday while I was preparing to deliver cloud design documents to my company’s management. While I do not recognize any of the names on this discussion list, I can contribute my position here. As early as 2006 I was hired to plan, design, and architect a cloud for one of the major institutions that also offers cloud services to consumers. It was early in the game and the only available modeling tools for such an enterprise effort was UML and some others. I must say that this article is right on the money! This was and will always be a major issue with cloud modeling. The major questions that I asked way back and to a larger extent today are: how do we design and architect a cloud environment? How do we discover services for a cloud? What are the modeling tools? What are the relevant diagrams? How can we create a reference cloud architecture? And many more. This is not “vacuous”. Ask any business or technology person. The great need is there! My suggestion would be to let it mature and also let others add content as Wiki always does bestLisa Murphy AWSi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC). This template must be substituted.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: It should be noted that claiming a subject will be more important soon and is the next big thing is generally not considered a valid argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of this to Cloud computing and redirect. This article focuses on providing overly detailed information that is not relevant to a general audience, and should be trimmed down severely and merged with the parent topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it could still use more references, I think it has enough now to overcome the reason listed by the nominator for AFD. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The so-called "notation" described in this article is not standard in computer science. This page is a mix of ESSAY and OR. —Lowellian (reply) 11:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two comments: (1) Has Wikipedia ever published articles that are only "standard in computer science"? Who decides what is a standard in computer science? does the world standard mean anything in the context of existing technologies? (2) The so-called "notation" is widely used world-wide and is of interest to a wide range of readers. See: http://www.sparxsystems.com/somf - specifications for cloud computing notation in Enterprise Architect modeling platform on the bottom of this page Carl presscott (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Carl presscott (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

- First, you already once voted to keep this article near the top of this discussion. You should not be voting twice.
- Second, regarding your question "who decides what is standard in computer science?": Certainly it should not be Wikipedia, which is what the editors of this article are trying to do with this original research. This article as it stands does not provide a general overview of cloud computing notations, goes off on tangents and questions-for-thought as if it was a guide or exercise for students, and promotes a specific non-notable model as if it was standard usage in the field of cloud computing, which it is not.
- —Lowellian (reply) 00:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree, this article is not about any general introduction to cloud modeling. It introduces a modeling notation for cloud that is widely used. It is similar to articles in Wikipedia that discuss particular modeling languages, such as Unified Modeling Language, SysML, Energy Systems Language, and Papyrus. Not everything in computer science is about the OMG standards, IBM, or Microsoft. I bet that Wikipedia does not intend to promote these companies' products as well. The intention is to introduce a modeling language for cloud that is widely used. Carl presscott (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a common genre in technology: a discussion of a fairly general subject, oriented around a particular company's product. It's essentially an infomercial, and has no more place here than any other promotional writing. The claim of fairly wide use of the method is not supported by references, except for those produced by the company. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fundamental article that offers important content to readers. It focusses on a mehtod of cloud modeling and represents a systematic approch to cloud design. It is not a product and it does not sell anywhere. It is actually opened for public use. Companies teach this method and others implemented the notation in their modeling platform. But the method itself does not sell. Very recommended! AnitaRogel (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

This comment (like many others above) completely ignores the actual reason this is nominated for deletion. We need indications of notability from reliable sources. That it is useful or used by people is not in debate. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- This comment of mine (like many others above) does Not ignore the actual reason this is nominated for deletion. The problem is that your comment ignores that this article discusses reconition of the topic by the industy. And this indicates notability.
Comment: for closing admin. Please see this thread which points to some meatpuppetry here. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:44, 20 March 2011 (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.