Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oracle Enterprise Service Bus

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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 07:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Enterprise Service Bus

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

Longterm WP:GNG issues and mutliple other tags. Unable to verify most stuff here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ESBs are just starting to be noticed in mainstream IT. As this article was written back in 2007, that's early days and unsurprisingly short on secondary coverage. Deleting an article on Oracle's (You've heard of Oracle, right?) ESB product is exactly the sort of thing that makes WP look so ridiculous to real people. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Oracle has changed the name (branding) of this to "Oracle Service Bus" (but it's still Oracle's enterprise service bus). The article should be renamed. Here's the current links: [1], [2]. I agree with Andy Dingley's comment about looking ridiculous. Please! Please! If you don't understand a topic, that isn't a good reason to nominate it for deletion. Ask for help from a Resident Technologist instead. — HowardBGolden (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest possible keep, and perhaps revisit this in a year or ten. Searching for sources, I was able to uncover one book about this product. There does seem to be some confusion about which product of several this actually is.

But Oracle's fame does not confer inherited notability on each of its products. This is deep, deep back office stuff that nobody outside the IT department is going to interact with directly. Products like this are unlikely to get much disinterested notice from outside the trade, of a sort that shows this product has the kind of technical, historical, or cultural significance of the kind that equals long term historical notability. It looks like more of the bog-standard IT-cruft touting a commercial product, and as such I find nothing "ridiculous" about this nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Just one book? I've been a production review editor on at least two myself. Also if I have to share space with fecking baseball and pokemon (I don't even know who Steven Colbert is), I expect a certain amount of mutual respect towards my own trade. After all, if it wasn't for IT morlocks, you'd still be on CB radio and hanging out on street corners. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I do respect "IT morlocks"; but it remains my impression that the IT world is full of fads and flashes in the pan. I will admit that overexposure to spam makes me rather wary. Still, it's not our task to stay on the cutting edge of "emergent" methods or concepts, nor to catalog every IT product ever offered, but rather to report on those that have the kind of long term significance needed to share space with Socrates, the steam engine, or Visicalc. So no, I don't find this nomination "ridiculous". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment for Smerdis - I have always wondered why is it you insist that coverage of computing-related topics must come from outside computing-related publications to satisfy notability requirements. Do you think that Art majors and Humanity types, for example, have the capability and authority to determine what computing topics have technical, historical, or cultural significance? I would be very concerned if you answered with something other than "no". Just because its the same people who are writing about their disipline/trade, does not mean that they are automatically subject to bias, and are incapable of writing critism and with objectivity. Influential microprocessor magazine, Microprocessor Report, publishes the most objective coverage and the scathing critism of microprocessors, and it is as not-outside the topic of microprocessors as it can be without being a publication cheerleading for the industry. In contrast, many large newspapers publish sugary, ignorant, exaggerated, nonsensensical rubbish about microprocessors, yet they are staffed by people from media, not the computer industry. Do you see my point?
- Furthermore, I find your comments that automatically assume "back-office IT room stuff" to be automatically non-notable to be rather biased against "back-office IT room stuff". Different topics are notable for different reasons, their non-notabiility for reasons that are not applicable is irrelevant. Do you think an arguement that Pokemon are not notable because they are animals, and animals are studied by zoologists, but zoologists don't study Pokemon, logical? I don't. An argument for non-notability because media studies and cultural studies people don't study Pokemon is logigcal because it is applicable to Pokemon. I would prefer it if you would you stopped making suggestions and arguments such as these. The amount of coverage is sufficient to tell us about the notability of a topic, objectively as well. Rilak (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the book referenced above and other coverage found here and here. I would however, note that we already have a massive systemic bias towards IT-related subjects, and there is no reason to treat specific products used as components of software systems as having any more inherent notability than specific products used as components in the real "real world", such as (and I'm taking a wild guess that this will be a red link) the SKF 306-2ZNR bearing. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not a mechanical or manufacturing engineer, so I've never heard of the SKF 306-2ZNR bearing. However, if it is important to that field, I say it should have an article, redirect or listing somewhere in WP. Oracle Service Bus is more than an individual component, so the comparison to a particular model of bearing isn't apropos AFAICT. The service bus is part of Oracle's suite of products to implement service-oriented architectures for its customers. This is the direction all the major software vendors and developers are going now. It's not a fad or flash in the pan. On the other hand, it probably will not have the lasting significance of Socrates or steam engine. However, WP:N doesn't set the bar that high, much to Smerdis of Tlön's apparent disappointment. At this time, and I hope forever, WP isn't limited to only the articles that a particular faction finds notable. — HowardBGolden (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the fact many Wikipedia editors work in IT and "know" what topics are notable doesn't mean that articles about IT are exempt from our guidelines on notability through sources. I note that neither editor characterising the nomination as "ridiculous" presented any independent sources to back up their position: the work of finding the notability-clinching source was done by the editor who gritted his teeth and gave a "weakest possible keep" opinion. My professional background is in IT, and have seen enough "next big things" (OSI, anyone? Which IBM was still pushing for years after I was making lots of money helping to sell TCP/IP products [not "solutions", please] for MVS?) over the last 30 years to take such claims with a pinch of salt, and with an insistence on proper sourcing. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not belaboring the point, but human folly deserves full treatment in WP, IMO. All "next big things" will either turn out to be big things or big follies. (There is a systematic bias against publishing results that show either no effect or failure. This is a shame, since it means valuable knowledge is lost, and others will waste time and money to achieve the same results.) Also, my "ridiculous" comment above comes more from the apparent lack of effort to fix an article before nominating it for deletion. That's the soapbox I'm on. — HowardBGolden (talk) 19:13, 2 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.