Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unified virtual infrastructure

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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unified virtual infrastructure

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

At first I thought it looked like an advertisement, but I couldn't find anything in particular its advertising for. Unsourced essay violates what Wikipedia is not and possibly no original research , ~~and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if its a copyright violation.~~ 2 says you, says two 21:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a legitimate and I wrote from scratch I am more then happy to shame my original document and what it is detailing is UVI which takes both elements of virtual server and desktop and looks at creating a strategy to help implement virtual environments. There is no copyright infringement as I do not discuss any vendor it is purely written as something that the virtualisation community would benefit from. I hope this clears up things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan orchard (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was not accusing you of copyright infringement, but when a document goes up all at once like that, some Wikipedia editors such as myself start to wonder. Wikipedia is not the place to post essays or original research, but if you can have third party, non-trivial sources on the subject that support the content of your essay, it could become the start of an article on the topic. 2 says you, says two 22:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the wikipedia rules do you want me to fill the reference points for virtualization, and associate parts so that there is referable information? Please let me know I can do this so that it conforms to wiki rules. Thanks Dan Orchard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan orchard (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:NEO. No sources of any sort, reliable or otherwise. Ravenswing 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With consolidation, power savings and with less administration, virtualisation is at the top of every organisations I.T priorities. So why look at a U.V.I strategy? The reason is simple, most organisations have virtualised or looking to virtualise, their server farms because the benefits are too compelling not too. So now we see Virtual Desktop being the next big virtualisation project because again, consolidation, power savings with thin clients and I.T control the desktop remotely as well as control software licensing by delivering the right software needed by the different departments. So what is a U.V.I strategy, this is where both virtualised server and desktop come together on a single unified infrastructure platform, which would be the physical server (cores matched to memory and I/O), storage, networking, protection and security. The infrastructure around these technologies needs to be designed accordingly so that organisations can reap the benefits from delivering virtualisation to the end users and hence V.D.I. I'll be reaping benefits? When do I start? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting essay with some novel ideas of interest to the field I work in. So delete I'm afraid - WP:OR. Thparkth (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources and article is completely unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's an essay, and unfortunately, not a good one. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:34, 4 November 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.