Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SWML - Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Petros471 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SWML - Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language[edit]
Nominate - Seems to be put in commercially; title clashes horribly against MoS; if the process is valid outside that single company then it's probably still worth merging into Scrum (development) --Firien § 09:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised nomination Commercial link removed; utterly non-notable; 0 hits, no source, no verification. Possibly up for speedy. --Firien § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Who, Your Mum?
- Comment - Not put in commercially, I added this and I know of at least two companies that are using the SWML. Perhaps it's worth expanding on what MoS actually is, generally I'm against the use of abrieviations without providing explanation of them. Suggest MoS is added as a new entry into Wikipedia. Maybe SWML is a UK based phenomenon. I understand that SWML.org is going to be coming soon detailing the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
- Which two companies? You only linked to one - that's why it looked like a commercial linkin. MoS is the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the guidelines on how the encyclopedia should be structured; I'm used to discussing with other editors who understand standard Wikipedia abbreviations, and perhaps need to reconsider where I use it. If SWML.org comes along detailing the language that'd be useful, especially if it wasn't directly linked to a commercial organisation. --Firien § 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you can help tidy it to conform to the MoS :-)
- Which two companies? You only linked to one - that's why it looked like a commercial linkin. MoS is the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the guidelines on how the encyclopedia should be structured; I'm used to discussing with other editors who understand standard Wikipedia abbreviations, and perhaps need to reconsider where I use it. If SWML.org comes along detailing the language that'd be useful, especially if it wasn't directly linked to a commercial organisation. --Firien § 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also I note that Microsoft have an entry on Wikipedia, perhaps this has been put in as a commercial entry and therefore should be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
- A quick google for "Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language" gets two hits. Both are Wikipedia, so no hits count. SWML returns SignWriting Markup Language as closest (yet still completely different), and refining with the term Scrum included brings it back to the same two hits. This makes the notability of this article very questionable and subject to deletion merely by Wikipedia's notability guidelines - this is not a recognised software development tool. A similar search for the word "Microsoft" returns 1.9 billion hits; even by removing all the hits with microsoft in the url we still end up with 1.3 billion. Microsoft's scale and fame, whether good or bad, is notable and is therefore suitable for a Wikipedia article. Even if it was started commercially there's enough editors here that that commercial tie would soon be shredded; what we end up with is an article that is fairly near to objective, not counting occasional vandalism to the page. If we relax your example to look at other, smaller companies, the general pattern is that it'll only be included if it's notable enough to be well-known on the web; googling is a handy depth tester for that. However I tend to assume good faith and so nominated this for deletion discussion rather than speedy admin deletion. I believe the article was written in good faith; so long as commercial ties can be left out that belief will remain. --Firien § 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I find your assertion that Google is the font of all knowledge and that wikipedia should merely be a subset of google results not only incorrect but also rather insulting. If Wikipedia is merely a subset of google results then this surely raised questions on the validity or necessity of wikipedia itself. Further your claim that this is not a recognised development tool is correct. Nothing is developed by the use of SWML, merely SWML enables it easier to understand what people are stating on white boards. I think what you mean is "I don't recognise this as a development tool". If this is the case would it not be possible that you do not know ALL the development tools currently in use, or are you claiming that between google and yourself you can form a full set of development tools. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
- Don't twist my words. I stated clearly that google is used as a test of notability, not as a fount of knowledge. Wikipedia cannot and will not rely on it, because it is not a source of reliable facts; but it can be used to measure if a topic exists. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia and so strives to keep its information true and verifiable. And your granting that this is not a recognised development tool makes it subject to deletion purely for its lack of notability - Wikipedia is not a place for original ideas, not for "spreading the word". Of course I don't know all the development tools in use; I'm not superhuman. No-one does. Neither did I claim that I can with or without google form a full set of development tools. I'm actually swayed by your arguments to change my vote from Merge to Delete; the information simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. --Firien § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again you state that Google can be used to see if a topic exists. I question whether google has all possible topics in existence. Does it know for example about every tribe in the rainforest - probably not. Further google is only testable for notability for the population of the world who can access the internet AND are able to create web pages. It's a poor test or existence, as someone who tests things for a living I suggest that you revise your testing strategy. I have not twisted your words, perhaps they are just ambiguous. Which was my point on Development tools and the term development. It depends on ones definition of the term development. Under your definition then yes it probably is a development tool, under other definitions then possibly not. It's a shame you feel the need to state that wikipedia is not a place for original ideas, quite clearly this is true and it doesn't need to be spelt out. I do however think that it is exactly the place for "spreading the word", why else would one use an encyclopedia if not to find things out and spead knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
- It is one of Wikipedia's rules that it is NOT a place for that. You told me to understand the topic; I'm telling you to understand the rules. Wikipedia also doesn't have an article about every tribe in the rainforest, but it also doesn't intend to. Same here. If you're also trying to suggest that part of the IT community is unable to access the internet or able to create web pages, then I'll just sit here and laugh. --Firien § 12:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that certain parts of the military are not able to access the internet but are still involved in IT. Perhaps you should consider a few more posibilities. Incidentally I was not suggesting that. Please don't be hypocritcal and twist my words :-)
- It is one of Wikipedia's rules that it is NOT a place for that. You told me to understand the topic; I'm telling you to understand the rules. Wikipedia also doesn't have an article about every tribe in the rainforest, but it also doesn't intend to. Same here. If you're also trying to suggest that part of the IT community is unable to access the internet or able to create web pages, then I'll just sit here and laugh. --Firien § 12:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no specific commercial ties to this entry. SWML is planned to be released non-commercially as a Beta in the next few months for comment before version 1.0 is released by the end of the year. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
- I find your assertion that Google is the font of all knowledge and that wikipedia should merely be a subset of google results not only incorrect but also rather insulting. If Wikipedia is merely a subset of google results then this surely raised questions on the validity or necessity of wikipedia itself. Further your claim that this is not a recognised development tool is correct. Nothing is developed by the use of SWML, merely SWML enables it easier to understand what people are stating on white boards. I think what you mean is "I don't recognise this as a development tool". If this is the case would it not be possible that you do not know ALL the development tools currently in use, or are you claiming that between google and yourself you can form a full set of development tools. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
- A quick google for "Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language" gets two hits. Both are Wikipedia, so no hits count. SWML returns SignWriting Markup Language as closest (yet still completely different), and refining with the term Scrum included brings it back to the same two hits. This makes the notability of this article very questionable and subject to deletion merely by Wikipedia's notability guidelines - this is not a recognised software development tool. A similar search for the word "Microsoft" returns 1.9 billion hits; even by removing all the hits with microsoft in the url we still end up with 1.3 billion. Microsoft's scale and fame, whether good or bad, is notable and is therefore suitable for a Wikipedia article. Even if it was started commercially there's enough editors here that that commercial tie would soon be shredded; what we end up with is an article that is fairly near to objective, not counting occasional vandalism to the page. If we relax your example to look at other, smaller companies, the general pattern is that it'll only be included if it's notable enough to be well-known on the web; googling is a handy depth tester for that. However I tend to assume good faith and so nominated this for deletion discussion rather than speedy admin deletion. I believe the article was written in good faith; so long as commercial ties can be left out that belief will remain. --Firien § 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that this page is a stub for a more complete article about SWML (a language that I know and use) and I think that it should be kept for a while for the original author to have the opportunity to complete it. The language, as far as I know is not commercial nor linked to any particular company. Although it has been developed and mostly used in conjunction with the SCRUM methodology, it can be easily applied elsewhere as it only defines the whiteboard syntax, therefore it should have an article of its own. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs) (Article creator) 16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again my point is that in the creation of the article it was linked to a particular company; as seen in this edit, the second edit to the article just after the article was created by the same person. That site doesn't even have a single result when you search it for the word 'markup', but it was tied to the article nonetheless. Perhaps it's just that link that needs removing, per WP:NOT; while there are admittedly a large number of guidelines on Wikipedia I'm sure as an IT professional you'll recognise the acronym RTFM. While anyone can edit, this isn't freeform; it's still an encyclopedia. Having now looked into the notability of SWLM and found it lacking, I personally feel that this article should either be deleted entirely for lack of notability, or merged back into the main scrum article; if it ever matures/develops (as perMartinp23's comment below) into something widely recognised and used in software development methodology then the section will become large enough to split off into a separate article. Your argument about being developed and used in conjunction with Scrum is weak since the title of the article is "Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language". Again if it does ever become used, whether under a name not linked to scrum or not, it should be notable outside Wikipedia before an article is written here. --Firien § 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but agreed - mergeamended below; FYI ControlChaos is Ken Schuaber's company for Scrum consulting and cirtification. It was included as an external reference for Scrum and not as part of SWML. As far as I'm aware Ken does not support SWML at this stage, and therefore SWML has no links to ControlChaos. I suggest that you understand the domain about which you are writing before raising further objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs) (Article creator)- If it's an external reference for Scrum, it should be in the article for Scrum, not in this one. Even there it would be questionable, because it's an external commercial link that doesn't improve the article. There are hundreds of companies that perform similar work, and I fully understand the domain even though I don't and don't need to know every single twist introduced by every single software company and IT consultancy and PM-training house in existence; I suggest both that you note what my objections were (originally "Commercial, possibly non-notable, badly written"; now without the commercial consideration since that's been clarified, but definitely non-notable. It doesn't matter at all whether Ken supports SWML, or who wrote it, or whether I know about it. It matters how many people know about it. Google was used as a test for this; no, it's not exhaustive, but with 0 hits outside wikipedia, unless the only place it's hosted is in some sites with a disallowing robots.txt, the concept remains marginal and unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Can you see this getting into Encyclopedia Brittanica? Perhaps in the future, when it becomes more widespread, but not now. I'll also paraphrase you and suggest that you understand the domain in which you are writing before raising further objections. As mentioned before, Wikipedia is not a freeform source for information. It is not intended to be the sum of all human knowledge, nor to document every single variation that will ever exist. --Firien § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy for it to be merged with the main scrum article. You state that because SWML is Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language it is part of a development process. This is dependent on your interpretation of the term development within the software arena. Does it mean cutting code, or does it mean anything to do with the delivery of software products. I draw your attention to the existence of development teams, management teams, testing teams within a software project. Clearly here development mean cutting code. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
- I draw your attention to the level of the articles around software development currently in Wikipedia. Terms are at the level of Agile, SSADM, Feature Driven Development, DSDM, RUP, PRINCE2, Scrum, Critical Chain, RAD, SEI's CMM, XP. I'm sure that because of your familiarity with the field you'll recognise those; hopefully you'll also recognise their scale. Those are working at the level of lifecycle planning, team structure and management, project management, estimation, requirements specification, testing, collaboration tools, and modelling methods. A new method for clarifying how things are set out on a whiteboard? You think that compares? I understand software development, methodologies, development of those methodologies, best practises. I've read Brookes, Yourdon, Avison, Fitzgerald, Demarco, Lister; they set out software development pretty well. Sure, there's newer stuff; it's IT, everything's obsolete the next day. But until it becomes noteworthy it is not suitable here. That noteworthiness comes from the scale of recognition, or it comes from excelling in its field and being noted at this from a reputable source. It does not stretch to something invented by 4 people that is still in its infancy, however well developed the language itself might be. --Firien § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please state the specific required scale of recognition for wikipedia. Given that you clearly are not knowledgable on SWML I don't think you should make such harsh and unfair derogatory comments about it. Incidentally you state best practices, perhaps you should read further what many in the field deem to be best practice. I follow the school of thought that there are no best practices, merely a set of good ones that one should choose from. Reading and citing a range of authors does not make you the authority of software development. Brookes - which one, who cares how many books you've read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
- Again, RTFM. Because you don't seem to want to bother going through it, I'll point you at the right place. "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency". This is not. I'll also point you again at the page which you failed to read when I posted before: WP:NOT. I'll draw out the main points in case you're still too lazy: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." Yes, this fits. It's structured - but it's still original. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." What harsh and derogatory comments? You think calling it small and unknown is derogatory? I'm calling it not notable in the context of Wikipedia within Wikipedia. And again, I didn't claim I was the authority of software development. You questioned that I had any knowledge of software development, so I replied. You can't argue that I don't know anything and then moan about it when I show I do. Neither did I claim that I knew anything on SWML; I suggest you read back on my comments and compare them to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. --Firien § 12:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy deletionThere's not need to be patronising!I am fine with this being deleted,there's no need to get eggy. I am not reading what you're linking to because some of us have propper jobs and don't spend our lives worrying about what is and what is not on a website. Am pleased though that two individuals actually felt it was noteworthy! SWML is actually a term in use, butI'm ok with you deleteing this on that basis that it's not that common.Interestingly a quick google search for Peter Beentje is pretty interesting. You yield 35200 results, maybe you should have an article in wikipedia, after all you're pretty noteworthy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs) (Article creator)- That's because you're doing it wrong. "Beentje" is a Dutch word, and will be found in combination with the name 'Peter' a lot. I'm sure that by stalking me you've found out some more about me; while parts of it are impressive to various people in various ways, it's not what would be considered noteworthy of an encyclopedia. There isn't an article about me, there won't be unless or until I do something that's recorded by a reputable source. Does it matter? Nope. --Firien § 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To Stalk - To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff or To move threateningly or menacingly. or To track prey or quarry. I hardly think that doing a google search on your nickname and then on a fairly obvious persons name associated denotes stalking. But if it gives you a thrill I guess you can think I am. Good grief, don't you have better things to do, find a job etc.
- That's because you're doing it wrong. "Beentje" is a Dutch word, and will be found in combination with the name 'Peter' a lot. I'm sure that by stalking me you've found out some more about me; while parts of it are impressive to various people in various ways, it's not what would be considered noteworthy of an encyclopedia. There isn't an article about me, there won't be unless or until I do something that's recorded by a reputable source. Does it matter? Nope. --Firien § 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way (BTW) I'm 16! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs) (Article creator) -- ...so? --Firien § 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) -- So... what's it like to bully someone! I was bullied at school as well and it's nice to see that people online are just the same. I bet you'd virtually bog flush me in a geeky online game if you could![reply]
- Again, RTFM. Because you don't seem to want to bother going through it, I'll point you at the right place. "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency". This is not. I'll also point you again at the page which you failed to read when I posted before: WP:NOT. I'll draw out the main points in case you're still too lazy: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." Yes, this fits. It's structured - but it's still original. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." What harsh and derogatory comments? You think calling it small and unknown is derogatory? I'm calling it not notable in the context of Wikipedia within Wikipedia. And again, I didn't claim I was the authority of software development. You questioned that I had any knowledge of software development, so I replied. You can't argue that I don't know anything and then moan about it when I show I do. Neither did I claim that I knew anything on SWML; I suggest you read back on my comments and compare them to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. --Firien § 12:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please state the specific required scale of recognition for wikipedia. Given that you clearly are not knowledgable on SWML I don't think you should make such harsh and unfair derogatory comments about it. Incidentally you state best practices, perhaps you should read further what many in the field deem to be best practice. I follow the school of thought that there are no best practices, merely a set of good ones that one should choose from. Reading and citing a range of authors does not make you the authority of software development. Brookes - which one, who cares how many books you've read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
- I draw your attention to the level of the articles around software development currently in Wikipedia. Terms are at the level of Agile, SSADM, Feature Driven Development, DSDM, RUP, PRINCE2, Scrum, Critical Chain, RAD, SEI's CMM, XP. I'm sure that because of your familiarity with the field you'll recognise those; hopefully you'll also recognise their scale. Those are working at the level of lifecycle planning, team structure and management, project management, estimation, requirements specification, testing, collaboration tools, and modelling methods. A new method for clarifying how things are set out on a whiteboard? You think that compares? I understand software development, methodologies, development of those methodologies, best practises. I've read Brookes, Yourdon, Avison, Fitzgerald, Demarco, Lister; they set out software development pretty well. Sure, there's newer stuff; it's IT, everything's obsolete the next day. But until it becomes noteworthy it is not suitable here. That noteworthiness comes from the scale of recognition, or it comes from excelling in its field and being noted at this from a reputable source. It does not stretch to something invented by 4 people that is still in its infancy, however well developed the language itself might be. --Firien § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep — Give it time to mature/develop Martinp23 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language, and allow for organic expansion. --Daniel Olsen 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP If the term Cammel Toe is in here, this must surely stay!!! I've Therefore Changed my mind on this and SWML should definately stay. It's far more Noteworthy than Cammel Toes. If you don't know what one is I suggest you look it up. Although, you probably reviewed that entry already. "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency". I did a quick straw poll in my office and hardly anyone here has heard of it. Nearly as good a test as a google search!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
- Delete no hits on Google. user:wossi 10:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- As previously stated if hits on google is the criteria that you are using to display noteworthiness, then I would question your measurement. You are merely turning Wikipedia into a google subset.
- Delete, something someone made up in work one day. Scrum is a real thing, this is a stupid in-joke, and as such original research and patently unverifiable. I really don't think the people voting keep have either looked at the article or tried to verify it in any way. - Bobet 10:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest you provide evidence that it is A. Stupid and B. A Joke
- I believe it's an in-joke since the first version lists the people by name who supposedly invented it, and there's no indication that it's used anywhere else. And it's stupid since it's not funny (although I've no prejudice about stupid humor in general). - Bobet 11:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest you provide evidence that it is A. Stupid and B. A Joke
- 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.