Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Infrastructure Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dynamic_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 keep. Issues with verifiability, neutrality, tone and other inappropriate content are resolvable problems that have no bearing on a topic's suitability for inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in the encyclopaedia is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and there is consensus here that this topic has reached that.  Skomorokh  14:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Infrastructure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

This neologism is not notable, there are serious verifiability issues, little in the way of neutral point of view and it has read like an advert ever since it was created *from an IBM patent and trademark* (per edit logs). With sections like "Need for a holistic approach" and "Benefits of having a dynamic infrastructure" and no discussion whatsoever (beyond a pronouncement from User:Kbrhouse - a SPA created for the purpose of editing this article) it is clear that Wikipedia is being abused as a soapbox. Most problematic though is this edit which removed my dated prod *and* forward-dated two article issues templates (confusing & cleanup) while adding a raft of problematic text. CloudComputing (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that other companies may have been counting on overturning the IBM trademark since googling "Dynamic Infrastructure" -IBM returns 68,500 hits. I assume that terminating the cancelation proceeding for the trademark on 24 August 2009 means that the term is now completely in the hands of IBM. However, the term may still be notable in its own right and deserves some discussion. See WP:PRODUCT. It seems that many vendors are now using the term "Infrastructure 2.0". Perhaps that's a better name for a cleaned up version of the article that might have a section specifically on Dynamic Infrastructure. While I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, you are throwing a lot of stones at User:Kbrhouse when you seem to have your own SPA issues. Since IBM is pushing Dynamic Infrastructure as part of their Cloud Computing solution, there's a chance that you work for a direct competitor of IBM in this field. If so, it would be a conflict of interest that I think you should disclose when proposing to delete an article related to IBM. Disclaimer: I have never worked for IBM or any Cloud Computing vendor. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And while I appreciate your right to an opinion you are wrong with your accusations and perhaps should try assuming good faith. Discussing an IBM trademark in a generic context makes the article even more problematic and if it is to remain then it should at least explain the trademark situation. CloudComputing (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the trademark issue. We should first decide if we want to keep the article under this name, merge it into another IBM product article, or rework it into an article on Infrastructure 2.0. I need to look into it a bit deeper before making a recommendation. UncleDouggie (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked into it. I think the current article should be moved to Infrastructure 2.0 with a redirect from Next generation data center to it. Both names are already referenced in the first sentence of the article. There are currently no redlinks to either topic. The new Dynamic Infrastructure should redirect to a new section of the moved article that presents the history of the terms, including IBM's trademark on Dynamic Infrastructure. I do note that Google shows close to 20M hits for Next generation data center and just over 100K for Infrastructure 2.0. However, it seems to me that any subject containing the words "Next generation" is doomed to have a very short shelf-life in the IT world. With IBM enforcing it's trademark on Dynamic Infrastructure, it's more likely that others will jump on the Infrastructure 2.0 band wagon. I propose that we close this AfD, open a move proposal to Infrastructure 2.0, and then cleanup the article to meet WP standards. Worst-case, the text that you object to could be removed and the article returned much to it's original more NPOV state. We would then still have at least a stub that others can expand on for this important topic as well as an edit history. Given the importance of Infrastructure 2.0/Next generation data center to Cloud Computing, I'm interested to hear your take on this. Can you see two such articles compliment each other, or do you prefer to delete this article outright and bury Infrastructure 2.0 in Cloud Computing somewhere? UncleDouggie (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit sharp of IBM! I agree that redirects to Infrastructure 2.0 might be best if they have any success enforcing the patent. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — there seem to be plenty of references and external links, not just IBM, establishing notability. The tone of the article should be improved, but that does not mean it should be deleted. I have improved the references and done a little bit if tidying. More is needed! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Its the way all the big boys are heading, Im not aware of any serious enterprise class org that isnt at least investigating these models. Granted its not the most notable topic but then recent technologies that arent user facing rarely are, there's enough coverage in the IT press to pass our standards. Fairly inexperienced staff still sometimes move to a position when they'll be working with servers, so theres likely a great many readers that might find the article useful. Im only voting a weak keep as while its well above the typical standard we see from a new user, it will admittedly be challenging to clarify the articles scope and would take a long time to bring up to the quality of say the excellent cloud computing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2009 (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.