Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hybrid cloud (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to Cloud Computing. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter  (constabulary)  17:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hybrid cloud
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

"Hybrid cloud" is an emerging, poorly defined neologism. Neither the article nor the two references agree on what it is - in one case it's a hybrid of two clouds and in the other it's a hybrid of locally managed services and cloud services. A third, unmentioned, hybrid cloud technology (RunMyJobs) stores data and runs applications on a company's servers. Joja lozzo  16:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Question What if anything has changed since the "keep" result of the first AFD? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a good question. The page is quite thin so most any change can be significant. Here's a diff. The NIST definition (a combination of two or more clouds) persists but content on "hybrid cloud servers" was removed and content on "remote/local infrastructure" (different from the NIST definition) was added. IMO these are symptoms of the lack of definition and immaturity of the topic. I suggest checking the previous afd discussion. There is a suggestion that the topic be merged with Cloud storage gateway, which, as far as I can tell, is not a hybrid cloud. IMO, as long as the sources don't agree on the topic definition, this page is going to be a muddle. Joja  lozzo  19:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – I agree with the nominators assertion that it is a “…is an emerging,” terminology. However, disagree that it is a neologism.  A quick Google search shows reporting from extremely prestigious outlets such as; Forbes, Wall Street Journal, Register, InfoWorld, IT Business Net and on and on and on, as shown here .  In addition, there are several hundred Books discussing the term “Hybrid Could”, as shown here, which will help define the terminology.  Finally, looks like quite a few Scholarly works, as shown here , are also discussing this terminology.  Based on this information, I got to go with Keep.  The only thing that can happen with the article is that it is going to improve and expand.  Isn’t that what we want for any article here at Wikipedia?  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 21:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good points. For now a merge is probably a better solution. I'd withdraw my proposal if there was support for that. Joja  lozzo  22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)




 * Merge into Cloud Computing until it grows up. Joja  lozzo  03:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with Cloud Computing as Jojalozzo says. Just because you can have "hybrid" "cloud computing" doesn't mean it's a concept distinct from cloud computing in general that requires its own article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into Cloud Computing. Subject is notable but does not merit a separate article at this time. --Kvng (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2012 (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.