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 no consensus. Closing as no consensus. There appears to be significant concern that the article was trimmed prior to AFD. In my opinion, a link to a prior revisions is plenty to carry on the discussion. However, there is sufficient concern in this discussion to warrent a close with no prejudice to renomination especially after WP:PAYWALL has been clarified to the nominator. v/r - TP 01:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud engineering

[edit]
Cloud engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject not sufficiently verifiably notable for dedicated article, which was written by a conflicted editor using original research and citing unreliable sources including blogs, event agendas, conference panels(!?) and/or irrelevant sources. The closest thing to a verifiable reliable source failed to satisfy WP:PAYWALL. Hence I propose:

Please note the comment above is the opening comment by the nominator, not a !vote by an independent editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn on account of the large deletions carried out by the nominator, just prior to nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I cited the (many) policy violations in the process of trimming back the article, and it was only once I realised there was no meat to it that I nominated it for deletion. -- samj inout 22:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back in July I had the same experience as Sam, working on the article to improve it, realizing there was little there to work on and then proposing on the talk page that we delete it. Based on my own experience, I suggest we assume Sam's good faith in this. Jojalozzo 23:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GF would be a lot easier to assume in such cases if the nominator made such a process clear in the nomination. You may be right (as mentioned, I haven't since had time to read these sources), but Caesar's wife looks a right slapper when these things are hidden. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't double-!vote. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you claim on my talk page that this is a breach of policy, still don't double-!vote. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every reference removed was accompanied by policy violated (WP:SPS, WP:RS, WP:PAYWALL, etc.) so can you please identify specifically which sources "pass" the WP:GNG? Specifically:
  1. Authors blog — fails WP:RS
  2. Author's business? — fails WP:RS (and WP:COI, see also WP:ADVERT).
  3. Gartner note — fails WP:V (per WP:PAYWALL)
  4. Agenda item for conference panel moderated by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
  5. Agenda item for talk given at commercial conference by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
  6. Irrelevant paper — fails WP:PAYWALL anyway
  7. Agenda item for talk given at commercial conference by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
  8. Agenda item for talk given at commercial conference by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
  9. Agenda item for talk given at commercial conference by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
  10. Agenda item for talk given at commercial conference by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
  11. Agenda item for talk given at commercial conference by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
  12. Agenda item for talk given at commercial conference by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
  13. Presentation for talk given at a commercial conference — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
  14. Agenda item for conference panel attended by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
  15. Possibly relevant paper, refers to different term and fails WP:RS (per WP:PAYWALL
  16. Use of cloud in traditional engineering is unrelated to subject — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
  17. Presentation for talk given at a commercial conference — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
  18. Agenda item for conference panel moderated by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
  19. Agenda item for conference panel moderated by author — irrelevant, fails WP:RS
If you're saying that I stripped the article in order to get it deleted then you are both mistaken, but once I had cleaned it up I realised there was so little to it that it may as well be deleted/merged. -- samj inout 08:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the policy that says all references must meet WP:RS?
We require some RS so as formally to demonstrate notability. We do not require all refs to meet the same standard. In this case, conference papers are likely to be highly illustrative and valuable additions to an article and so should be included, but we may still exclude them from the list of RS because of their lack of independence. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that none of the sources meet WP:RS. -- samj inout 11:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then that can be reason to AfD the article. It is not reason to remove the refs, then to AfD the stripped-out article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I looked at the original author's contributions, and they not only fall under the category of self-promotion, he's gone through a large amount of the software engineering and cloud computing articles to insert x-refs to an article on a topic that nobody else has encountered. If you search for "cloud engineering" then there's almost nothing on the topic; this article comes first and second comes a [[1]] which introduces the datacentre-scale topics I mentioned earlier, and indeed, cites the same classic google reports. I fear that Tony is not only trying to get more citations for is ACM article on wikipedia than it gets in the rest of the computing industry (two citations; not read it myself yet to have an opinion on it), he's trying to create a new concept by way of wikipedia -indeed, a whole new category- and then take credit for it. This not only not how the ACM works, it's not how the academic side of the computing industry works. I don't cite my papers or books -neither should anyone else. If your work is seminal enough, someone else will do it for you. Now I'm going to have to d/l and read the article and strip out all citations that aren't appropriate.
returning to the topic of this AfD, I think I will start an article on datacentre-scale computing. That will cover many of the issues, but I won't cite my work, and I will use the terminology that other people use. No cloud hype in the title. SteveLoughran (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, thanks for commenting, as I trust your judgement on this.
To go back to my previous delete comment, is this a delete because the discipline doesn't exist yet, or because it can't ever exist? IMHO, I know what "cloud engineering" is. I can draw you its boundaries, but I don't know whether any workers in the field have yet created material that falls within it. It looks here as if there's a COI / SPS / puffery problem more than anything: one person is jumping the gun to self-promote (see also Web 3.0) before there's an established corpusfor us to pick over and document. As before, I suspect deletion is currently the way to go.
Do you though feel that there is not yet a discipline for cloud engineering, or that there really never will be one? I still feel that there will be one, once it's established. The cloud is important, so I hope someone will be taking an engineering approach to it, not just letting the PHBs and the charlatans split the money between themselves. Wikiprecedent is that articles once deleted are hard to re-create when ripe - WP isn't a WP:RS, but AfD is bizarrely seen as RS by some vocal deletionists for proving non-notability in the future. I'd thus have no problem here with a content-free stub under Cloud engineering, even if it said no more than "Cloud engineering is the application of robust software engineeering approaches to the Cloud. No-one has yet worked out the details for doing this, and the nearest we've come is web- & datacentre engineering."
I agree that web != cloud. I would disagree though that cloud is no more than a datacentre, and that it can be managed similarly. IMHO, a cloud has to be implemented over multiple sites of available resource, and it has to be free of single-point failures affecting any one datacentre. Many of the service-purchase issues are the same between them, but single-host clouds are not clouds - they can break.
As to the WP aspects of this, I'm a lot happier voting delete on a large bad article I can see than on a pre-stripped one. No offence to those involved in this article, but that's a technique popular for deleting articles by gradual cuts that's used way too often by some other unscrupulous editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the paywall references that I could get at through IEEE and ACM access. [12] is a tutorial, not even peer-reviewed to conference standards; it gets cited by some of the other papers by Shan and a colleague. [13] and [15] are pretty much the same 2 page abstract reformatted for different events. There's nothing seminal in any of them. If you want something good, look at the paper Above the Clouds. SteveLoughran (talk) 10:01, 14 September 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.
More