Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooperative Web Services
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An article about a protocol implementation that hasn't been released yet. Also, the fact that it has been written by the creator of the thing and his explicit saying that it is his thesis makes me think about vanity. Sarg 20:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, agreed - the fact he links to his own user page suggests vanity. It's self-promotion, and (certainly at present) an unnotable technology. UkPaolo 21:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Among many other things it is not, Wikipedia is not the IETF. ----Isaac R 00:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (I'm the author of the page) Hi all, I'm a newcomer to wikipedia editing, I've read the guide for votes for deletion and I would like to enter into the discussion. Sarg said that the subject of the article is a "protocol implementation that hasn't been released yet". I think it isn't right. CooWS is an implementation of an agent based model. CooWS is an application framework. It doesn't specify any new protocol (even if it uses a lot of common standards among web services world). And it's false that CooWS hasn't been released yet. Even if there isn't any "stable" release, from the project homepage the beta build can be downloaded and tested. The code is 90% mature and the first stable build will be released in the next months. (I'm currently writing the docs and I've thougth that my contribution to wikipedia at this stage would have been less time consuming). Finally, on the last Sarg's comment, yes the application is written by the author's page but the explicit cite on my thesis would have been the start for an "history/origins section". UKPaolo says that the technology is "unnotable". The main subjects of this work are Web Services, agents software and semantic web. I think that, at present, all these technologies are receiving a big attention from the academic and industry world. I think Isaac R makes the same misunderstanding of Sarg. Wikipedia is not IETF, this is right, like CooWS is not a proposal for a new standard. Thanks for your time spending. ----Luigi Bozzo 10:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Luigi, thanks for your detailed comments. Sorry about the confusion about the use of the word "protocol" (never use protocol when it's 2 o'clock on the morning...). However, I stand by my points about notability. It is clear that agent based models are notable, as well as many of the technologies mentioned. That's why I haven't nominated agent based model or Java programming language for deletion. However, your project is not known enough / used by enough people / notable. It might be in the future, but it is my opinion that this isn't the case now. Sarg 14:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with Sarg, I'm afraid, Luigi, though many thanks for posting your comments. I still consider the page to be self-promotion, however, surely any true encyclopedic article wouldn't include linking to your userpage. That appears to be vanity. As Sarg said, for the time being your project is simply not sufficiently widely used to be considered notable. I consider it's entry self promotion, and stick with my delete vote. UkPaolo 16:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the reasons given above. In general, software referenced only on the creator's web pages is not notable. As a bare minimum, it should be discussed by someone other than the person or group that wrote it and is promoting it. No evidence that this has generated much interest yet. Quale 18:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete (I'm the author of the page!!!!) Thank you guys! I've learned something new about wikipedia. Now I can understand. My page was very_very_very off topic for an encyclopedic article. Please remove immediately the page (and the image that I've uploaded!!!). ----Luigi Bozzo 08:13, 01 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.