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. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudsourcing[edit]

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

This is an essay of promotional patent nonsense about a dubious neologism alleged to be a "latest trend". Even if the subject were an actual subject that belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a buzzword wannabe and sales slogan, this text still would still need to be replaced in its entirety, as nothing there now is salvageable:

sourcing complete solutions to run your business from the public cloud....
the latest trend to source complete solutions to run a business from the public cloud....
There are benefits from moving all of an enterprises IT infrastructure to the cloud....
Cloudsourcers can focus on more value-added services for their customers....

Probably can't be fixed, because even the quotations from the sources are a tissue of patent nonsense and sales patter:

According to IDC Anlayst, Michael Fauscette, "It's really an extension of the business process outsourcing (BPO) business that exists today. There could be significant value generated to businesses by combining the two concepts, cloud computing and outsourcing a business process to a 3rd party. It takes cloud to the next step and offers the valuable combination for business of leveraging cloud computing + a cloud application (or cloud service) + business process execution in one bundle."

Text like this is not information. Seems to be redundant to cloud computing or outsourcing in any case. Uninformative text like this just does not belong here. Contested proposed deletion. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

Keep Yes, it's a fashionable buzzword. Yes, most comment on any such buzzword will be an outbreak of suitpidity. ...and Yes, we do cover WP:NEOLOGISMs once they're established and sourced, such as by ZDNet.

The combination of the two is (or is at least treated as) a new topic, same as most business innovations, not just a fork. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The ZDnet source is a blog; it may or may not be a reliable source. My first thought was to strip out the solution-speak, nonsense, and unreferenced claims and stub it, but that would leave little more than, "Cloudsourcing is a portmanteau word describing the use of cloud computing for outsourcing." That seemed unsatisfactory, and I looked at the links and Google News results without finding anything that even smelled like a fact. There are other reasons besides lack of notability to delete articles, and this would appear to meet several of them even if examples of the word being used are found in sources. "There's no there there."

And you know Cyberdyne Systems is behind all of this "cloud computing" stuff anyways. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very sparse use of the word, almost primarily in unreliable sources, often used "in quotes", which screams WP:NEO to me. At best, a lame wiktionary term. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe there is some justification for a very short article on this topic, but none of the current content is suitable, it is all commercial jargon. Perchloric (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO even if it is an industry analyst who comes up with a neologism rather than a high-school kid. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:19, 13 April 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.