Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decentralized Model
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 redirect to Decentralized Model to Decentralized system. The curent article is an unreferenced personal essay. Federated Model stays for a separate deletion nomination, since it is generically bad. `'mikka (t) 22:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decentralized Model and Federated Model[edit]
This article was made by one user who also claims to be the creator of the very system that it talks about. Speedy was removed, as was prod twice, but I still have questions about this article's notability and other information related to it. I may add several other articles to this list if speedy tags are removed from them as well. Ryūlóng 06:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the other article to this AFD, as the speedy was removed by the same editor who removed the prod. I am unsure as to whether or not this person is the author, though. Ryūlóng 06:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been in discussion with the author about the concept of federated system models and decentralized models and everytime I refer back to the article, it has notice. The author does claim he invented the concept, but has willing remove any such claim to allow the article to stay. - reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.238.190 (talk • contribs)
- But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not these articles should be included as part of Wikipedia based on actual notability and use of these things, despite the author being the creator of the concepts. Ryūlóng 06:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. The naming is similar to other articles in Wiki. The concept actually mainly refers to a decentralized software model. Whether it's notable, I'm not the expert, but being a software developer, the concept is intriguing. - reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.238.190 (talk • contribs)
- The intriguing or naming is also not the issue either. It is an issue on the truth behind the content, as well as what appears to be vanispamcruftisement. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Ryūlóng 07:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a interesting term. I'm not interested in enforcing anything, but the definition of vanispamcruftisement is highly subjective. I, we, thought that wikipedia was an all encompassing encyclopedia of all things, big or small to big or small groups. I agree, ownership should be removed, but notibity is also subjective. You do what you see fit, but I'd change the name to have it suit the concept better and leave it for the public to decide. I can't help mention that Open Space Technology started on a similar foot as a concept and is still considered unimportant on wikipedia, but it's there and I can say it's in practice where I work.206.186.238.190 07:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an all encompassing encyclopedia, but there are issues that concern the notability, etc. of this/these computer system(s), particularly due to the fact that the original author created the program(s) in the first place. I realize that it is subjective, but when an author publishes his own work to Wikipedia, he has more to gain from that than anything else. Ryūlóng 07:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't want this disputed any further. Just delete the article. I don't understand why it is such an issue to publish a concept by the author or creator of that concept who of course would know it best, and I mean any concept by anyone. Anyone can dispute ownership, but I really don't care who claims ownership over this. It's a concept, not a product, to freely share amongst the public and wikipedia looked like a good medium for it. Again, just delete it, both Federated Model and Decentralized Model, which I agree should have been named Decentralized Software Model, though I still think Federated Model is as notible as Federated school which is really a type of federation, but I'm not disputing a thing at this point. Also, how do I delete my account? Robert Demelo 07:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why it is such an issue to publish a concept by the author or creator of that concept — Then please read our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox policies. The ways to have new ideas published are books, journal articles, papers presented at conferences, and magazine articles. And the way to demonstrate that something is not original research is to cite sources. Uncle G 15:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't want this disputed any further. Just delete the article. I don't understand why it is such an issue to publish a concept by the author or creator of that concept who of course would know it best, and I mean any concept by anyone. Anyone can dispute ownership, but I really don't care who claims ownership over this. It's a concept, not a product, to freely share amongst the public and wikipedia looked like a good medium for it. Again, just delete it, both Federated Model and Decentralized Model, which I agree should have been named Decentralized Software Model, though I still think Federated Model is as notible as Federated school which is really a type of federation, but I'm not disputing a thing at this point. Also, how do I delete my account? Robert Demelo 07:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an all encompassing encyclopedia, but there are issues that concern the notability, etc. of this/these computer system(s), particularly due to the fact that the original author created the program(s) in the first place. I realize that it is subjective, but when an author publishes his own work to Wikipedia, he has more to gain from that than anything else. Ryūlóng 07:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a interesting term. I'm not interested in enforcing anything, but the definition of vanispamcruftisement is highly subjective. I, we, thought that wikipedia was an all encompassing encyclopedia of all things, big or small to big or small groups. I agree, ownership should be removed, but notibity is also subjective. You do what you see fit, but I'd change the name to have it suit the concept better and leave it for the public to decide. I can't help mention that Open Space Technology started on a similar foot as a concept and is still considered unimportant on wikipedia, but it's there and I can say it's in practice where I work.206.186.238.190 07:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The intriguing or naming is also not the issue either. It is an issue on the truth behind the content, as well as what appears to be vanispamcruftisement. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Ryūlóng 07:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. The naming is similar to other articles in Wiki. The concept actually mainly refers to a decentralized software model. Whether it's notable, I'm not the expert, but being a software developer, the concept is intriguing. - reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.238.190 (talk • contribs)
- But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not these articles should be included as part of Wikipedia based on actual notability and use of these things, despite the author being the creator of the concepts. Ryūlóng 06:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Judging from Google, it seems to be a term commonly used: Dept. of Vet. Affairs (US), news about Dept. of Energy, and more. --TeaDrinker 07:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I still want my account deleted, but here are two more references off Google: [1] and [2] Robert Demelo 08:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there an update to this? 64.231.75.191 03:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to add more imformation to this article, but I don't want to waist my time. What is the official status of this article. I believe it's 100% legit because it's all over Google. 64.231.75.191 03:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Original research. Mukadderat 17:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see at all how this is original research. It's all over the Internet, thus verifiable. 64.231.154.4 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a verifiable source: Intranet Journal
- I don't see at all how this is original research. It's all over the Internet, thus verifiable. 64.231.154.4 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 08:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR. verify linked articles for afd as well. article does not include any external link. User:Yy-bo 14:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.-Kmaguir1 20:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge withRedirect to Decentralized System and Move to a new Federated System article. The current titles are poor, I think, because they don't answer the question "Decentralized model of what?" The current titles sound unencyclopedic because of this. Doesn't seem like original research. Wishy-washy word choices in industry shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Flying Jazz 23:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- "Wishy-washy word choices in industry shouldn't be in the encyclopedia" ?? OK, lets look at this for a sec. Encyclopedias are full of "Wishy-washy" industry words that are NOW considered non-"Wishy-washy". For example the Ether. What is the definition of "Wishy-washy" anyway and where does it say they can't be in an encyclopedia. Talk about irrational!!64.231.64.244 05:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The desire to redirect a rambling article about a model of a system to a concise article about the system itself seems utterly rational. I am certain that a sentence like: "Decentralized systems do not lose control of it’s internal processes, functionality or data, they communicate with external systems, decide whether to use external data or functionality and vise-versa." was never used to describe ether. Flying Jazz 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wishy-washy word choices in industry shouldn't be in the encyclopedia" ?? OK, lets look at this for a sec. Encyclopedias are full of "Wishy-washy" industry words that are NOW considered non-"Wishy-washy". For example the Ether. What is the definition of "Wishy-washy" anyway and where does it say they can't be in an encyclopedia. Talk about irrational!!64.231.64.244 05:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Decentralised system which says the same thing far better in about 3 sentences --Aim Here 01:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I've changed my opinion above. Flying Jazz 04:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because a system is not a model. Definition: A physical model is used in various contexts to mean a physical representation of some thing. That thing may be a single item or object (for example, a bolt) or a large system (for example, the Solar System). In this case, the Decentralized Model or Federated Model refer to the physical enbodiment of decentrlized or federated things of which a system is a thing comprised of smaller things. We don't have to define the what of a Decentralized Model to merit validity to the context(s) of the decentralized physical representation of some thing.64.231.64.244 04:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "system" is sufficiently broad to encompass all "things" which a decentralized model could model. We could have an encyclopedia with one article for every notable concept or object in existence and a seperate article for a model of every notable concept or object in existence, but I think most people would find an encyclopedia like that to be rather silly. Another layer of modeling is also possible. One could create an article for a "Model of a Decentralized Model." Why not? Models also exist in the real world. When I was a kid I had a model of the human heart. Before building the model, I created a model of the model on paper. Should Wikipedia have a "Heart Model Model" article? Or just an article on the heart? Flying Jazz 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that this discussion has been going on for this long validates the reasoning to keep the article. It appears to me that no one has thoroughly verified the sources to this definition and the fact that a good portion of this encyclopedia is thinking that a system is a model in this case re-enforces the rationality in favour of this document though it's examples refer to systems directly, it is the context in which the system(s) is/are being referred to that matters. Let me remind you that it is NOT the definition that is relevant here, but the need for the subject and it's context of meaning to exist on Wikipedia so to develop the world's most comprehensive encyclopedia of world knowledge. The definition of what is non-encyclopedic is highly subjective and I strongly insist that the determination of what warrants representation in Wikipedia be scientifically rationalized. 64.231.64.244 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your final sentence, when analyzed logically via syllogism, reaches the conclusion: "I strongly insist that the highly subjective be scientifically rationalized." Flying Jazz 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's apply Deductive reasoning which is much more detailed than syllogism, which is possibly a more analytical derivative of syllogism. Scientific method should be applied when determining article acceptance to Wikipedia. 64.231.112.181 01:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "I strongly insist that the highly subjective be scientifically rationalized." YES, striving for objective perfection against the greatest odds. This is the reason why the sciences exist; to explain the why, when, what, where and how objectively. 64.231.112.181 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's apply Deductive reasoning which is much more detailed than syllogism, which is possibly a more analytical derivative of syllogism. Scientific method should be applied when determining article acceptance to Wikipedia. 64.231.112.181 01:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your final sentence, when analyzed logically via syllogism, reaches the conclusion: "I strongly insist that the highly subjective be scientifically rationalized." Flying Jazz 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting this page without reason is not proper especially with the debate still not concluded! 64.231.71.162 06:36, 16 September 2006 (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.