Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClimateTalk

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. WP:NOTAVOTE; delete arguments prove to be the strongest here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ClimateTalk

Vanity page/product placement/whatever you wanna call it. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral What an unfortunate name for a protocol. The kyoto protocol really makes it hard to search for anything about a "climatetalk protocol". I'll mark the article for rescue, but most of the stuff I find looks like press releases. [1] [2]. Gigs (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're googling you can quite easilly exclude a word from the result set by pre-fixing it with a dash. So I searched for "ClimateTalk protocol -kyoto" and didnt get any global warming stuff - but I still didnt find those links so thanks for posting! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its an open protocol so no need to reject this for spam. Looks like quality and useful technical information. Sources have been added to show noteability, granted they're in the industry related press, but thats the best one could hope for with a HVAC specific protocol, even if its technically stunning. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ClimateTalk is an open protocol, non-proprietary and open for adoption. A Wikipedia page seems warranted. This is not product placement because it is not a "product". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloud9ine (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC) — Cloud9ine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Gigs (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response : This is an open protocol, and specifications are released to anyone becoming a member of the alliance. Initially developed by Emerson, this was handed over to a managing organization (Global Inventures) now running the alliance. Specification overview is at http://www.climatetalk.com/wrdclt/docs/ClimateTalk_Spec_Overview_ASHRAE_09.pdf . Detailed specs are released to any adopters taking membership to the alliance. Global inventures handles ZigBee, Homeplug etc. If this isn't open neither should they be. Again, open protocol does not mean spec is open and there on the internet. You still need to get a membership and pay administrative costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloud9ine (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC) — Cloud9ine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Whether the protocol is open or not is irrelevant to whether we should have an article on it. Gigs (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for news sources, books and articles, and generally on the web, and I failed to find any independent secondary sources referring to this system. In the very unlikely circumstance that this is kept, it needs rewriting as it is full of jargon. Fences&Windows 20:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I also could not find additional independent information. The supplied company representative PDF here also mentions proprietary messages. Proprietary is not open. No mention is made of other members. There is too much here that needs correction that it should be deleted. I would also agree with the company representative that the other protocols mentioned by comparison should be identified properly as well should they have the same identified pitfalls. This is not an ISO standard open protocol and needs to be identified as such. (Sysint_37) 12:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC) — Sysint_37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- REMOVE It's a product placement. Otherwise, where is the published standard and please indicate where any other manufacturer or entity is adopting this "open protocol". Essentially it IS a product placement if the only user is Emmerson in their products. sysint_37 Sysint 37 (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC). — Sysint_37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

For what it's worth, the proprietary messages are a method in the open protocol for adopters to use their existing protocol messages wrapped in a ClimateTalk message wrapper. It is not a ClimateTalk proprietary message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloud9ine (talk • contribs) 13:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC) — Cloud9ine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:N, it has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Click23 (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 24 June 2009 (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.