Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAS Rapid Data Warehouse Methodology

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SAS Rapid Data Warehouse Methodology

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

Completing nomination for IP. Reason is:

[R]eads like a tech whitepaper or similar [1]

I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Business case then requirements before design before build before deployment? Well, that's an innovative approach! Nothing notable here, just a retread of the mundane, so delete. AllyD (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be snobby. The principal steps are always the same in waterfall-model-like development architectures. It's mainly what's in these steps that makes the difference. Nageh (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is completely out of my area of expertise. For what I found this model is one of several more-established solutions for an integral design approach for data warehouses. This reference (in German) states that notable methodologies are ASAP BW Roadmap of SAP, SAS Rapid Warehousing, the spiral model of Gill&Rao, the IDSE approach, and the life cycle method of Kimball. From my perspective, it would be good if we had an article on warehouse development or warehouse design methodologies and could merge the current article (with little to none useful information) there. We don't have these articles and it looks like we also don't have someone with the required expertise. So the question is: the article does not explain why what it specifically contains is notable (IMO it is not), nor does it provide any references, so should we assume good faith, hoping for an improvement some day, or delete it? Maybe the answer should be that if some day someone will come along and is willing to write a constructive article on this subject then he is invited to do so but until then maybe it is better to delete this article. Nageh (talk) 10:53, 12 June 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.