Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIOps


 * 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 IT operations analytics. Sourced material can be merged. Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

AIOps

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable tech buzzword. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially for terms with 91 GHits.  — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  01:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Hello, I've noticed that AIOps stands for both "Algorithmic IT Operations" and "Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations" (in the IT field, these two terms apparently mean the same thing and are used synonymously; for example, this Deloitte document will provide more clarity). Having seen sources like the Deloitte one and others like I don't quite feel it's simply a non-notable tech buzzword. What would be your views on the sources I've listed? I'll await your view before taking a call here. Warmly,  Lourdes  12:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources, Lourdes, but I don't think they change my !vote. That said, at this point I wouldn't object to a redirect to IT operations analytics. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  16:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, appreciate it. Quick clarity required (ref my query above: "What would be your views on the sources I've listed?"). In my view, the sources I have provided seem reliable and discuss the subject significantly. Do you feel that's not the case with any of the sources I have provided? Thanks,  Lourdes  00:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that the individual sources cover the subject in depth, but I don't think that the sources, taken as a whole, comprise significant coverage. I just don't see the evidence that this is a concept with any real notability within the tech field. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  00:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks once again. You mention you agree that the "the individual sources cover the subject in depth". Our notability guidelines mention that that defines "significant coverage" allowing a topic to have a separate article; which leads me to one final query. When you mention again that you don't feel that "this is a concept with any real notability within the tech field", is this your personal opinion? Thanks,  Lourdes  00:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Our notability guidelines mention that that defines "significant coverage" allowing a topic to have a separate article That's not my interpretation of WP:SIGCOV. I interpret SIGCOV as saying that there must be a significant amount of coverage, not coverage that discusses the subject in a significant way. If we included every concept that had a dozen or so mentions in RSes, we'd have an encyclopedia ten times the size that we currently do. And no, that's not a personal opinion, at least not any more than any XfD !vote is. It's my interpretation of policy upon review of the sources provided. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  00:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your view. Warmly,  Lourdes  00:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator agrees that the "the individual sources cover the subject in depth". Multiple reliable sources as I have listed above, from Gartner to Deloitte to The Register and others discuss the subject significantly within each source. With due respect to the nominator's interpretation of SIGCOV ("I interpret SIGCOV as saying that there must be a significant amount of coverage, not coverage that discusses the subject in a significant way"), that narrow differentiation is not what the guidelines presumably intended. The topic here in my opinion has been discussed by multiple sources and has significant encyclopedic value.  Lourdes  00:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now also added all the listed sources to the article.  Lourdes  01:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: relisting, final attempt.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  05:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - this belongs in Wiktionary, if anywhere. WP is not a dictionary, especially for a term with multiple meanings.--Rpclod (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Rpclod. Just quickly checking – which multiple meanings are you referring to? If you have sources, those would be helpful. Warmly,  Lourdes  03:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * AIOps is a neologism coined by Gartner so it can sell more reports. Gartner originally referred to it as "Algorithmic IT Operations". Gartner subsequently referred to it as "Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations". The reality is that AI and algorithms are two very different items.--Rpclod (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to IT operations analytics where AI is already mentioned. Lourdes has done good work in finding a number of sources. The discussion of the use of AI or machine learning on IT operations is clearly out there in the trade magazines and company whitepapers. The issue is whether editors believe those sources to be reliable. Some do, some don't. Perhaps a compromise most of us could live with is to merge this into the analytics article, as most of AIOps coverage seems to be about analytics anyway. That way, readers could learn what AIOps is and as more substantial sources become available, a standalone article could eventually be spun out. --Mark viking (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.