Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Event-Driven Messaging

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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Event-Driven Messaging

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

Procedural nomination. Originally proposed for deletion by Stifle (talk · contribs) ("Written in nonsense business jargon, no salvageable useful content"); deletion endorsed by Nyttend (talk · contribs) ("As well, there's no real evidence of notability"), but constested by creator. Possibly a duplicate topic with Event-driven programming. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although this design pattern shares some basics with Event-Driven programming, however, the Event-Driven Messaging design pattern specifically deals with services, unlike objects, and discusses various issues within the service-oriented world. The constant contributor (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do accept that this specific design pattern is significantly different to the general event-driven programming. The description of the pattern at [1] to me sounds almost identical to the Observer pattern, just with the word service added. (A minor gripe is that why they didn't just call it the observer pattern for services, after all the rational for patterns was to create a common language). A possible solution might be to redirect to Observer pattern and add a note to that article then when applied to services it is called EDM. But there do seem to be issues with service availability which are not present in the observer pattern. So there does seem to be enough unique content to justify an article. There do seem to be enough references in the litrature, there is an main SOA book, and website, an InformIT article, a mention in an article in SOA Magazine.--Salix (talk): 18:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defer Although I work in IT, this isn't my field and and I'd guess few could comment on it sensibly. I suggest that an admin asks some more expert people to review it and come to a consensus whwther it should be kept or not. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started revisiting all of my articles in order to add more credible/neutral secondary sources. In the mean while, I would request all admins to give me some time while I do the research and add the references. Thanks The constant contributor (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The fact that there was a disputed PROD is no reason to bring the article here. The concept is quite clear to those that understand this jargon and said jargon occurs in numerous reliable sources as the search links above testify. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have just added some secondary sources.The constant contributor (talk) 17:46, 4 April 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.