Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data center automation


 * 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. X clamation point  00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Data center automation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was recently prod'd (by an editor other than me) with a description of "This appears to be using wikipedia as a forum for publishing an essay with the author's thoughts and opinions on the subject. It would be appropriate for a blog article somewhere, but not for wikipedia. Seems to violate WP:NOTAFORUM ("1. Primary (original) research"; "3. Personal essays") and the point of WP:NOTOPINION ("2. Opinion pieces," albeit not "on current affairs or politics")." The initial author of the article removed the prod, so I'm moving it to AFD. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * delete no sources. all OR. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons stated in the PROD (which I'd added).  I'll also add that it's self-serving and promotional, authored by an editor who repeatedly creates an article on himself despite its repeated deletion.  See WP:Articles for deletion/Dana L. French. TJRC (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete (no reliable sources given, external links are used only as adverts, no evidence of notability, etc) Tedickey (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Delete - seems like a Original Research Essay looking for a place to get noticed. Citations would go a long way to help make it clear that its not OR. Although this term does show up on Google, a lot of the terms used in thoes Ghits, dont show up in this Wiki Article. Confusing to say the least. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  12:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and see also Articles_for_deletion/Shell curses. WP:SNOW. -- samj in out 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - all of the issues can be addressed through editting, in particular the claim that there are no sources. Certainly the current article contains no sources, but the topic of data centre automation is a big one with a lot of coverage in the IT trade magazines. , and  are just a couple of examples. -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - I've removed the resource section as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The category for Business continuity and disaster recovery doesn't appear to apply to the non-Dana aspect of the topic Tedickey (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur that the subject is sufficiently notable to have an article, but the article in its present form is just an opinion-laden essay. It needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt, not merely edited. TJRC (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The article could easily be stubbed down to the first paragraph as a quick way to excise the essay material. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's close enough to burning it to the ground that I admit I must agree. TJRC (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It would seem that if it were stub'd, like you suggest, then it should also be merged with Data center, until such time as it warrants its own Article. When it eventually needs a WP:spinout then there is less likelihood of WP:OR. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  23:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right so for now it's still delete. -- samj in out 12:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A merge is not a delete. A merge transfers appropriate material to another article leaving behind a redirect from the merge activity. -- Whpq (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But if none of the existing material is sourced, which parts are suitable for being transferred to another article? Tedickey (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out that samj]'s conclusion of "delete" when the discussion veered to merge didn't make sense. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note Just to be clear, I still maintain the article should be kept as all the identified issues are ones that can be handled through editting.  We do have article cleanup tags such as originalresearch and unreferenced to identify the need for cleanup which is recommended as per WP:BEFORE prior to taking an article to AFD.  And I'll also note that no article improvement tags aside from an orphan have ever been applied.  Even a casual search will show that there is plenty of coverage about this topic in trade press.  So I don't see how this topic can be non-notable when it meets the general notability guidelines.  -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This added more tags, but was removed by Dana Tedickey (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed that. Thanks for adding them back to the article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But at this point I would have to at least ask the larger question, Does the Automation of any industry warrant a separate article? Or should it be a section of the Parent? What makes the Automation of this industry Notable? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  00:36, 26 March 2009 (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.